When there is an impulse to change people’s behavior, passing a law is often seized on as a logical response. Unfortunately, it’s often the wrong one.

The debate over regulating smoking in publicly subsidized housing provides the perfect example. The on-again, off-again push toban smoking in most parts of public housing complexes seems to be on again, after the most recent review of House Bill 46 by a key Senate panel.

The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor voted on Monday to restore the bill’s original intent: restricting smoking on properties under the supervision of the state Hawaii Public Housing Authority, everywhere except for designated smoking areas more than 25 feet from any residential or community building.

This means that a tenant wanting a cigarette would have to go outside his or her apartment unit, perhaps some distance away, day or night.

The current push in this direction is part of a national movement toward such restrictions, although they are by no means in the majority. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development released a notice July 17, 2009, that "strongly encourages" public housing authorities to implement non-smoking policies, citing in particular the health dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke among the nonsmokers, as well as concerns such as enhanced fire risks.

That’s a key point: The housing authorities were asked to do so, not state lawmakers. This makes sense, in that the authority is better positioned than the Legislature to develop rules suiting the needs of each housing complex.

Earlier revisions to HB 46 would have given HPHA the decision-making power to impose a ban, but State Sen. Clayton Hee, judiciary committee chairman, said the authority already has that power and hasn’t acted.

That’s true, but it doesn’t mean forcing the issue legislatively will accomplish anything more than creating a rule that will be all but impossible to enforce where it counts, within the housing projects themselves.

One reason: A ban is never a popular measure, but it’s even less so when it descends from on high, without residents having any voice in the discussion.

And the imposition doesn’t even appear to be necessary at this point. Hakim Ouansafi, the recently appointed HPHA executive director, has testified that the new administration supports smoking restrictions but underscored that they fall within the purview of the HPHA board, which should be given the space to develop them.

If any bill is passed, HPHA favors the first revision, House Draft 1, which bans smoking in enclosed or partially enclosed common areas. Leaving this governance issue to the board, Ouansafi said in his prepared testimony, "would allow us to incorporate participation from the Department of Health, our Resident Advisory Board, property management staff, public hearings and the tenants that would be directly impacted by this measure."

That is exactly on point. Nonsmokers do have good cause to seek relief from the effects of secondhand smoke, which, studies show, can be severe. But a cavalier approach to restrictions on the use of tobacco — a legal but highly addictive and health-threatening substance — is bound to fail.

At a time when public housing officials are contending with so many challenges in security and overall management concerns, handing them a smoking ban, all neatly prepackaged, would be no gift. The best outcome would be that the Legislature tables HB 46. The public housing authority deserves the first crack at forging rules with some hope of becoming effective.