Albany

One of the frustrations that comes with a low position on the economic ladder is having many everyday decisions beyond your control.

In my household growing up, we were always renters, which meant we couldn't get a pet or paint a wall without asking permission. Likewise, families that don't own cars can only go to the supermarket when the bus schedule tells them they can, instead of when it's convenient.

So I sympathize with Albany Housing Authority residents who, starting in January, will no longer be allowed to smoke in their homes. One more decision will be beyond their control.

And as someone who grew up with help from food stamps and welfare checks, at times, I'm primed to react against the paternalism that suggests the poor are too stupid to make their own decisions. Take a look around. Rich people do stupid things, too.

Still, despite my misgivings, I can't say the Albany Housing Authority is wrong to ban smoking, as announced Tuesday.

Like it or not, the entity that owns a property makes the decisions, and there are many reasons why many landlords forbid smoking. There's the increased fire hazard, for one, along with the difficulty of getting the smell of smoke out of an apartment once it has infiltrated the walls and carpeting.

It's also right to consider non-smoking residents who don't want to inhale second-hand smoke — a reason cited by the housing authority.

Steve Longo, its executive director, told me he often hears from tenants who have asthma or other breathing problems and are bothered by a neighbor's smoke. There was nothing he could do to help, he said.

OK, I think we're all versed in the dangers of secondhand smoke. But I also think there are times when the risk is exaggerated to enforce an anti-smoking tyranny that doesn't make much sense.

I mean, you can't legally take a walk through Washington Park with a lit cigarette — Albany has banned smoking in parks — but nobody seems bothered by the thousands of cars that traverse the park, spewing exhaust as they go.

Visit the Ezra Prentice Homes, a housing authority complex in the South End, and it's immediately clear that secondhand smoke shouldn't be the only air-quality concern.

More Information Contact Chris Churchill at 518-454-5442 or email cchurchill@timesunion.com See More Collapse

Six lanes of Interstate 787 traffic zooms by the north end of the complex, while big trucks rumble through on South Pearl Street. Immediately adjacent to the complex is the Port of Albany, where oil- and chemical-laden trains unload.

The surroundings make a ban on secondhand smoke seems ironic. After all, living near a highway or truck traffic has been linked to significantly higher asthma and heart attack rates, according to the Centers for Disease Control and other organizations.

Longo acknowledged that the complex's location isn't ideal.

"We're not saying the smoking ban is a cure-all," he said. "But this is something that is doable. We can't do anything about the truck traffic and the highway."

On Wednesday I visited the Ezra Prentice Homes, where I met Bebe White, 59, who was sitting outside his home smoking a cigar. He didn't object to the smoking ban, partly because he hates the smell of cigarette smoke.

"A lot of people smoke in front of kids, and that's secondhand smoke," White said. "I have kids, but I smoke outside."

I also met Deborah Clay, a smoker who objected to the ban. (Neither Clay nor White were aware of it until I came along.)

"If you pay rent, you should be able to smoke if you want to smoke," Clay said, adding that she smokes outside when any of her seven grandchildren are visiting. "We should be able to do what we want in our apartments."

When I told Clay that the new rule prohibits smoking within 25 feet of a building, she imagined herself and her smoking neighbors huddled out in the courtyard on cold winter nights.

That's assuming that everybody actually obeys the rule. Enforcement will not be easy.

Yet that's one of the difficulties with rules that forbid behavior within homes. Banning smoking in public places — restaurants and offices — is one thing, but forbidding it in private places is inherently more intrusive.

I asked Longo, a former smoker, if he was concerned about the paternalism implied by restricting personal behavior, and he conceded the difficulty of balancing individual rights against the impact on others.

"The beautiful thing," he said, "is that you can go outside and smoke."

At least for now.

cchurchill@timesunion.com • 518-454-5442 • @chris_churchill