Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Interesting issue.
Cigarette smoke travels.......it penetrates porous surfaces. It makes the immediate environment unhealthy and unpleasant. It costs money to rid a space of the odor and discoloration ( ask Paul Ryan ). It's not a bad idea to limit tobacco use in publicly subsidized housing for these reasons.
I believe that any property owner can designate his or her property as non smoking. This isn't going to be legally challenged.
I smoke the occasion a cigar........outside. I'd never want to pollute the inside of my home with the smoke.
Where will the nutters come down on this one. On one hand....they want to make anyone who accepts any public assistance miserable......but they supposedly can't stand it when people are told what to do in their own homes.
Wouldn't a simpler solution be to provide one of those "smokeless ashtrays" to each apartment?
On one side you do have government providing housing, which means as the "landlord" they can impose restrictions like this. But on the other you do have government being the landlord, and to me I would be more comfortable if this was done at the State/Local level than the federal level.
In the end, it smacks of nannyism, and that means I am against it.
With the price of smokes how does one that depends on public housing afford them?
who
One who depends on public housing.
Is that any of your business?
When street camping one summer guy in a car came by where we all hung out selling packs of name-brand cigs for a buck a pack. He was stealing them. I assume that's how low-income types gte their's on occasion too.