From Clicky in the comments yesterday, this piece in Reason:
A policy that is scheduled to take effect next Monday prohibits smoking in and near public housing throughout the country, affecting 1.2 million households in units managed by about 3,300 local agencies. According to a 2016 Observer editorial, “it may be the most far-reaching, intrusive and over-reaching executive order of the entire Obama administration.” In a lawsuit filed today, six smokers who live in public housing argue that the ban violates their rights, exceeds the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s statutory authority, cannot be justified as a regulation of interstate commerce, and unconstitutionally commandeers state and local officials by ordering them to carry out federal policy.
The smoking ban, which covers low-income housing that is federally subsidized but owned and operated by local public housing authorities (PHAs), applies to living units as well as common areas and extends to a zone 25 feet around each building. The policy is the result of a 2015 HUD rule that aimed to “improve indoor air quality in the housing, benefit the health of public housing tenants and PHA staff, reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, and lower overall maintenance costs.” The lawsuit, which was organized by New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (NYC CLASH) and filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that HUD has no business regulating indoor air quality or trying to dictate what people do in the privacy of their homes.
Good to see Reason drawing attention to this vile piece of legislation.
It’s a law which is almost as bad as Peter Koo’s proposed No Smoking While Walking. It’s a law that reduces the residents of US public housing to serfdom. Quite simply, they can no longer do as they choose in their own homes. After this, the sky’s the limit for any proposed bullying piece of legislation that any tyrannical bureaucrat cares to dream up. Next they’ll be told what they can eat and drink, and what clothes they can wear, what words they can speak.
The people who drew up this vile law wish to make serfs of everybody. And they’ve picked on poor people who are least able to defend themselves. Once they can impose their constraints on them, they’ll soon be emboldened to extend the precedent to everyone else.
It’s the use of the law not for the purpose of administering justice, but for exerting social control. It is in fact a negation of the primary purpose of law as a means of resolving disputes between people, of weighing and measuring the costs and benefits of some action, and redistributing them justly and equally among the participants in that action. This is the law being used to exert naked force upon defenceless people, in order to compel them to do as they are told.
As with Peter Koo, to my mind, it should be the framers of this nasty piece of legislation who should be in court, charged with the crime of subverting the law by bending it away from the administration of justice to the exertion of totalitarian social control. And the crime of subverting the law in this manner is, in my view, a far worse crime than any robbery or murder. For once the law is thus subverted, everybody is robbed. Everybody is deprived of justice. Everybody is deprived of the possibility of compensation. And this is why I said that Peter Koo must hang: he had set out to commit the greatest crime of all, which is to subvert justice itself. And I feel exactly the same about the nameless framers of this HUD legislation. They should all pay with their lives for enacting such an unjust and tyrannical law.
But most likely none of them will pay any price at all. And that will encourage others to subvert the law in countless other ways. No wonder abusive laws multiply.
CLASH’s Audrey Silk has set up a GoFundMe PRIVACY IN THE HOME legal fund page to fight the HUD law. It requires money to be spent on lawyers to fight these cases in the courts. And the poor people in the HUD residences haven’t the money to pay these lawyers.
And what that means is that there is no justice for the poor. For if a man cannot present himself in court, and defend himself with his own words, but must instead hire some advocate to speak on his behalf, then there is no justice. Or justice is only available to those who can afford it. And it seems to be becoming more and more expensive to defend oneself in court, and to require whole armies of lawyers to trawl through labyrinthine forests of law.
What we are seeing is not just one corruption of the law, but multiple corruptions. The first corruption has been to encourage petty tyrants like Peter Koo to enact vindictive, discriminatory, and plainly unjust laws. And the second corruption has been to make the law so expensive to administer as to render it beyond the means of almost everybody. And the third corruption is the multiplication of the numbers of laws to the point where expert lawyers are needed to parse the finer details of these innumerable (and frequently contradictory) laws.
Add it all up, and the result is the complete and utter corruption of the law. In such circumstances, there ceases to be any effectively operational law, and there ceases to be any justice. And when the law is completely broken and useless, the only recourse left to anyone lies outside the law. They must take the law into their own hands.
And this is more or less what we are seeing, with vigilante organisations of one sort or other operating entirely outside the law, and fighting each other on the streets. For once the law has gone, we all live in a lawless world, in a state of civil war.
The law must be simplified. The law must be simplified to the point where everyone understands the whole of the law, and nobody needs to hire a lawyer to defend them in the courts. And there ought to be a very high price to pay to change or add to the simplified law in any way. It should require a whole army of expensive lawyers just to remove a single comma from the law.
There is of course no sign of any simplification of the law ever happening. And the laws are still multiplying exponentially. And so civil society is breaking down, now that nobody has any effective recourse in law open to them.
Audrey called my attention to the comment thread in this article in Reason, a Libertarian publication. Appallingly, the comments were as virulently anti-smoking as they were anti-liberty. I commented elsewhere that these were obviously Limousine Libertarians
I read through them, too, when I read the article. Sadly, I think they’re right that tenants are going to lose the case. It’s not heartening to know that ‘libertarians’ are against them, as well, but I’ve noticed a lot of libertarians approve of smoking bans.
Not sure what to say to that.
They have been brainwashed by the relentless propaganda and captured by the antismoking hysteria. they aren’t actual libertarians just narcissists that seek to preserve their own liberty at the expense of others.
I wouldn’t bet on a loss. The constitutional and other grounds are really solid. But. Just because the federal govt can’t do this, it may be perfectly legal for the individual states to do it and once the ban is in place from the feds, the chance of states undoing it are slim.
Granted, if we don’t prevail on the grounds that govt. — fed, state or city — can’t do but win on the grounds that only state/city can, the conclusion is framed the wrong way. It’s not a matter of “undoing,” it’s a matter of “doing.” It cannot stand without them going through the necessary process to enact one.
It’s my opinion that none of those commenting there have read the case law on which this case rests or, if they did, didn’t do a good job of it.
I read the arguments in your case Audrey, and I personally was cheering. It seems quite strong and well thought out. But in this day and age, it seems the constititution and Bill of rights is easily tossed into the gutter when it comes to personal freedoms.
Frank, The public housing smoking ban is an assault on liberty. Tenants have had well established property and privacy rights since before the United States sought its independence from the United Kingdom. I would argue that smoking bans in general are an extreme infringement on liberty–especially since they have been imposed on the basis of a fabricated risk from second hand smoke. It is essential that all smokers and persons interested in liberty band together and impose smoking bans and resist their imposition.
If someone told authorities that I was smoking in my apartment, street justice would be coming their way. Where is the due process ?
There being no “recourse in law”, then whom should I go to? That top judges and lawyers haven’t yet taken a good, hard look at lung cancer trends as against smoking trends in the last decades just beggars belief, considering smoking rates have been plummeting all over the place for quite a while, with lung cancer risk not abating in the meantime (with the sole notable exception of British males).
N.B.; The Antismoking Crusade and the Corruption of Law is also the titlfail)'</ie of the final chapter of Don Oakley's ‘Slowburn: The Great American Antismoking Scam (and why it will >
I have a copy of that book in my collection. I highly recommend it. I’ve read it cover to cover at least 5 times…
“and why it will fail”
I can think of a few scenarios. Is the government the landlord? If so, the tenants can smoke, the government can’t forbid them. Now, it’s been a while since I worked in America, but I remember Section 8 housing being a mishmash of Housing & Urban Development, private landlords, and possibly others. Do private landlords have the right to ban smoking on the premises? Oh yes. In which case the government can’t necessarily force them to directly, but can certainly withhold the housing/rent subsidies unless they do as they’re told.
Or you could end up with a just-plain-psychotic-I-hate-smoking-judge. All kinds of weird things happen in the US legal system.
HUD exempts Section 8 from the ban.
Plus I should add that we have every intention of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule should we need to go that far. With a Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the court it tips in our favor.
Off topic, but interesting
OT but might interest you Brits. Lung cancer survival UK v US
They examined American and British databases of elders who had had non-small cell lung cancer in a recent four-year period.
At every step, they found, English patients’ lung cancers get less attention than US patients’ do. They are diagnosed later. Cases are less often confirmed via biopsy or categorized into a stage. British patients get less chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery than their American counterparts. One-year survival in the UK is 29 percent; here, it’s 40 percent.
Since 85% of non-small cell lung cancers have been found to contain HPV-18 integrated DNA, (Please refer to https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2018/07/13/three-ideas/ for links in my reply there) we have to wait until the virologists are getting fed up with the anti-smokers.
Perhaps the Americans are sharper on HPV (they just don’t publish it as not to destroy the anti-smoker myth that NSCLC is caused primarily by smoking) than the Europeans are?
Lung Cancer in Nonsmokers:
Lorraine Pelosof, Chul Ahn, Ang Gao, Leora Horn, Alejandra Madrigales, Joan Cox, Dauphne McGavic, John D. Minna, Adi F. Gazdar, Joan Schiller; Proportion of Never-Smoker Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients at Three Diverse Institutions, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 109, Issue 7, 1 July 2017, djw295, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnc…
Background: Approximately 10% to 15% of lung cancer cases in the United States occur in never smokers, but there has been much debate about whether this rate is increasing. To determine whether the proportion of never smokers among lung cancer cases is increasing, we conducted a retrospective study using registries from The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Parkland Hospital, and Vanderbilt University.
Methods: Registries were queried for demographic information from 1990 to 2013 including sex, age, stage, and self-reported smoking history. Ten thousand five hundred ninety-three non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) case patients and 1510 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) case patients were captured, and logistic regression analysis was performed. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Results: The proportion of never-smoker NSCLC patients increased from 8.0% in the years 1990 to 1995 to 14.9% in 2011 to 2013 (P < .001). This increase was also observed using multivariable logistic regression after controlling for sex, stage at diagnosis, and race/ethnicity. The percentage of never smokers among SCLC case patients (1.5% in 1990–1995 to 2.5% in 2011–2013, P = .36) or squamous cell NSCLC case patients did not statistically significantly change during this period.
Conclusions: This study demonstrates an increasing proportion of NSCLC patients who have never smoked in a large, diverse patient population between 1990 and 2013. Given that this increase appears independent of sex, stage, and race/ethnicity and also occurred in our county hospital, this trend is unlikely due to changes in referral patterns and suggests that the actual incidence of lung cancer in never smokers is increasing.