Ban on smoking in public housing is a matter of justice

The words "smoking ban in public housing" trigger strong opinions and emotions.

Indeed, this years-long debate has swirled in the Legislature with the introduction of one well-intentioned but ill-fated bill after another, repeatedly leaving the problem — and its lack of remedy — in the hands of Hawaii Public Housing Authority (HPHA).

On April 2, this deplorable status quo was overcome in a vote on House Bill 46 SD2 by the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor, chaired by Sen. Clayton Hee. While this decision surely will meet with some protest, let’s look at the reasons this vote was a key victory for the protection of public health, taxpayer dollars and fundamental civil rights.

From a personal perspective: I am a disabled public housing resident whose neighbors’ secondhand smoke (SHS) has been seeping into my apartment, causing me severe and increasingly serious health issues. It led to my eventual hospitalization, including a procedure necessary to save my life — an expense paid for largely by Medicaid, and thus, the taxpayer.

Lying in my hospital bed, I thought about one of my elderly neighbors who landed in the emergency room for SHS-induced respiratory distress over Christmas. We both face a living environment no one should have to return to for another day. But we have no housing alternatives.

Science validates our predicament: The U.S. Surgeon General notes that there is no safe SHS level, that even breathing a little or for short periods can be dangerous. If this is true even for healthy people, imagine the effect on those with pre-existing disorders or on children, who are at greater risk due to their developing physiology.

Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 toxic chemicals, some of which, according to the National Toxicology Program, are Class A carcinogens (the same category as asbestos). Furthermore, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers adopted a position that states: "The only means of effectively eliminating health risks associated with indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity. No other engineering approaches … have demonstrated (effectiveness)."

Thus, it is indisputable that SHS poses significant health hazards every day to those exposed, and that, despite common perceptions, once someone is smoking anywhere in a building, the entire building becomes contaminated.

This is where public health protection becomes civil rights protection: Does any person have the right to jeopardize the safety, health and life of another? If we can agree that smoking kills, as does SHS, does my neighbor have the right to injure me — or worse?

According to the Public Health Institute’s Technical Assistance Legal Center (2004), "only certain rights are protected by the Constitution as fundamental, and smoking is not one of them." Many activities are legal but nevertheless subject to prohibition when they put others’ lives or liberties at risk. One can drink, but not drive drunk. One can play loud music, but not at hours that disrupt the peace — even from the privacy of one’s own home. Similarly, one can smoke — but should not be allowed to in places that endanger others.

Smoking indoors in multi-unit buildings, or in outdoor areas that subject indoor ones to drifting smoke, classifies scientifically and medically as such endangerment. Anti-smoking law in Hawaii already recognizes these facts.

A legal imperative would by no means prevent HPHA from its current intent to implement a no-smoking policy. Simultaneously, a standard of justice — the province of the law — would be ensured for all future housing administrations.

Justice was done by Sen. Hee and his colleagues. This timely bill must be passed.