I recently had a family member move into low-income housing where people are allowed to smoke. I am outraged on many levels. You cannot smoke in a car, but the state will pay for you to smoke in your home.

Medical expenses for children exposed to secondhand smoke costs Mainers between $8 million and $11.5 million a year, with taxpayers footing about 65 percent of that bill. For children covered by MaineCare, 50 percent of those children are exposed to cigarette smoke on a regular basis.

Second, there is no known level of secondhand smoke that is safe, especially for children. Secondhand smoke causes or worsens respiratory tract infections in infants, children and the elderly. It can be fatal to a person with asthma.

Landlords in subsidized or unsubsidized housing have the right to limit smoking. As a landlord, this makes good financial and ethical sense. It is much cheaper to clean an apartment of a nonsmoker when they move than that of a smoker. Furthermore, you know that no one else in your building is being put at risk of heart disease, lung cancer, sudden infant death or pneumonia.

Taking kids who are already at a financial disadvantage and exposing them to poison is outrageous. All kids deserve the best start we can give them. Is this the best start we can give them?

Heather Harriman

Orrington