Few states have so many people living in as tight quarters as Hawaii does — so what people do, even within their four walls, can have a greater effect on their neighbors. This has implications, and one of them is playing out in the public housing complexes across the state: smoking is being banned in the housing units.

The Hawaii Public Housing Authority (HPHA), the state agency overseeing the state’s 85 public housing properties, has approved administrative rules now under review by Gov. Neil Abercrombie. Then the ban will be carried out, probably sometime after the end of the month.

The rules will be challenging to enforce, and some accommodations should be made. But on balance, they makes sense. Given that the overwhelming majority of residents are nonsmokers, some of whom have complained about smoke wafting over to their units, they also deserve due consideration in a publicly owned and maintained residence.

Further, there are state interests in reducing the risk of fire or damage to the units and in keeping the dwellings fit for rent to tenants who follow.

In the general community, areas where smoking is permitted have been shrinking over the decades. State law already bans smoking in restaurants, bars and within 20 feet of the entrances or windows of smoke-free buildings. In recent years, the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Hawai‘i has worked to persuade owners of residential rental and condominium buildings to prohibit smoking inside private living areas. Some landlords have made such rules, and as the landlord of public housing projects, the state should have the same prerogative.

Last year, the state Legislature passed House Bill 46, a measure that would have imposed the ban in statute. But the governor vetoed it, allowing the housing authority to develop the policy through its administrative rulemaking procedures. Although HB 46 would have required at least one smoking area to be designated, HPHA left the decision of where and whether to authorize smoking up to the tenants association at the housing project itself.

It depends on the layout of the housing property, but at most complexes it would be too great a hardship to have no place on premises for smoking. In cases in which a special exception is made and tenants are allowed to smoke in their units, the family would pay a $5 monthly fee, which seems a reasonable effort to fund repairs that smoking could make necessary.

Repeated violations could get the family evicted. With such consequences, it will be essential for each complex management to follow well-publicized enforcement procedures, with allowances for grievances. Decisions will need to be made on a case-by-case basis, and each case will have to be made carefully.

Hawaii joins a growing number of jurisdictions that are imposing smoking bans to manage one aspect of upkeep at government-subsidized housing facilities. The complaint is made, with some justification, that people need the leeway to conduct their private affairs behind closed doors as they wish.

But one person’s rights end where they infringe on those of another. Considering that some nonsmoking tenants continue to complain that secondhand smoke gives them discomfort — such as in the case of residents with emphysema or other compromised health conditions — protecting their rights becomes the duty of the government that provides the housing services. It should be possible to fulfill that duty with the interests of the larger community, rather than mere punishment, foremost in mind.