Ban Smoking in Public Housing?

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Its government housing. It isn't their homes. They can do what they want. Not to mention, when you rent you probably cant smoke in it. I personally agree with it. I would bet half, if not more smoke around their kids.
Secondhand Smoke and Children

Weeeeeeeeee! Cletus speaks!

 

[billyerock1991]

As a smoker, we're gonna get militant pretty soon if all these anti-smoking laws keep getting passed. We have matches and lighters and know how to use them

as a non-smoker who never ever even considered smoking, you see I knew I was already cool when I was little ...I knew I didn't need some cigaret hanging out of my mouth thinking it was making me look cool ... after all that's the only reason anybody ever started smoking was their vanity .

my best friend who I've known sense we were in the first grade ... that's when he started smoking way back then ... he tried to get me to smoke too ... I told him back then I didn't like the smell or even the thought of smoking and I still don't ... fast forward .... we are now in out 60"s .... the commercial on TV where you see this woman who has to breath through her neck, thats my buddy ... the commercial where you see this guy take out his teeth because of his smoking , thats my buddy ... then you see this guy putting on a artificial leg, he tells you its because of his smoking, that's my buddy ... in the entire time I've known him he has had 9 heart attacks and still lived ... he has had 5 veins bypass to his heart .... he has had 18 inches of his colin removed ... he is constantly getting colds which in his condition now isn't a good thing ... he had one lung removed because of his smoking and yes he still smokes ...

my point in saying this is I believe that everybody has a right to do to their body what ever they want to, its their body... when it starts hurting the people around them its time for something to be done... by you thinking you're not hurting people around you that you're rights are being taken away from you to smoke, you better open up your eyes and mind and look around you ....

you see my buddy thinks the same way you do... look at what it has got him.... he lost his home, because of all of the medical expenses he has ... which by the way caused him to lose his job... because he could no longer do the job any more .... he's now on SSDI on that money it pays for his apartment it pays for his co-pay's and what left is the money he has for food... you may think that you're doing great in your life, thats fine ... you might be, so was my buddy making great money... I look at what smoking has done for him... turned him into the worst thing that he would never want to be ... a burden on society ... oh yeah smoking is the best thing you can do... right !!!!!!

Growing up with both parents smoking in the home I was no doubt addicted to nicotine long before I ever tried one.

both my parents smoked ... so did that make me a smoker too??? I chose not to .... funny you say you parents smoked ... my buddy, both his parents never smoked at all ... so you blaming it on mom and pop, it doesn't really cut it... it was, and still is, a bad decision on your part ... you, like my buddy won't admit it ... the way his health is going now, I don't expect him to be a live much longer ... you know I was thinking about this post here, there were four of us ... we did just about every thing together all the way back to grade school... where we signed up to go into the service together, 2 of the gang are dead now because of their smoking ... Ed, lung cancer and liver cancer ...steve lung cancer and kidney cancer ... see what you got to look forward to ???

 

[billyerock1991]

But they must keep on trying to achieve the totalitarian state.

let me ask you, how is that turning it into a totalitarian state by stopping people from killing the people around them ???

Yawn....I've read your dope, you're dope

in other words you don't know how its turning it into a totalitarian state ... we get it

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm fuzzy on the whole dope thing, is dope good or bad now?

 

[martybegan]

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.

If only you were consistent on that.

I'm actually very consistent on that, from a libertarian leaning strict constructional federalist point of view.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The guys selling them that low are indeed fencing them, the guys selling them for $3 a pack are loading up small trucks down south and driving them up to NYC. The more sophisticated ones are faking tax stamps on them.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

The guys selling them that low are indeed fencing them, the guys selling them for $3 a pack are loading up small trucks down south and driving them up to NYC. The more sophisticated ones are faking tax stamps on them.

When NYC has them for like $15/pack I don't fault ANY measure to get em reasonably priced. Especially when $14 of the $15 is tax. That's outrageous. When I started they were $1.35/pack. I actually quit cigs because they got insane, carton of B&H 100s were $70 here when I quit. Was fond of joking may as well start smoking pot, it'd be cheaper. Pound of my pipe tobacco which lasts about a month is like $38.

 

[billyerock1991]

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?

thats a good question... in my state a brand name of smokes is $5.94 I looked it ... my buddy buys the off brand he pays $3.25 for a pack ... he makes sure he has enough money for the month ... he doesn't drink so that saves him a lot of money

 

[billyerock1991]

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?

Two words. Black Market. In any poor neighborhood in NYC people know where to get smokes without a tax stamp.

on a military base you can get smokes without a tax stamp ... that's the way it was back in the day I don't know how it is now...

 

[billyerock1991]

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.

The guys selling them that low are indeed fencing them, the guys selling them for $3 a pack are loading up small trucks down south and driving them up to NYC. The more sophisticated ones are faking tax stamps on them.

When NYC has them for like $15/pack I don't fault ANY measure to get em reasonably priced. Especially when $14 of the $15 is tax. That's outrageous. When I started they were $1.35/pack. I actually quit cigs because they got insane, carton of B&H 100s were $70 here when I quit. Was fond of joking may as well start smoking pot, it'd be cheaper. Pound of my pipe tobacco which lasts about a month is like $38.

I hope they cost 40 dollars a pack soon ... I've seen the damage its done ...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is it reasonable to ask people not to smoke in their apartments? This is their home. Shouldn't they be able to smoke if they want to, in their home?


While many public housing buildings are already smoke-free, this policy may go national. It was announced on Thursday that a new ban on smoking in public housing is being considered. A ban on smoking would make cleaning and maintaining units far easier and cheaper, in addition to lowering fire risks.

Smoking would be prohibited in public housing homes nationwide under a proposed federal rule announced on Thursday, a move that would affect nearly one million households and open the latest front in the long-running campaign to curb unwanted exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

The ban, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, would also require that common areas and administrative offices on public housing property be smoke-free.

The impact of the prohibition would be felt most heavily by the New York City Housing Authority, which is known as Nycha and houses more than 400,000 people in about 178,000 apartments. Though it is the largest public housing agency in the country, it has lagged behind many of its smaller counterparts in adopting smoke-free policies.

more here
Christine Rousselle - Smoking May Be Banned in Public Housing

It's not their home,they're only living there by the grace of the tax payer.

 

[billyerock1991]

But they must keep on trying to achieve the totalitarian state.

Next up: banning junk food in public housing.

They probably should. Probably receive food stamps. Why should I pay for their junk food?

Lets look at your Idea ... when I go to the super market I look at making some sort of salad to make as a side dish by the time I'm done it will cost me up to twenty dollars ... if you look at all the bad junk food you can buy for 20 dollars, in my state you can buy just about a weeks of junk food side dishes ... the problem we have here is the healthy food cost too much ... ask anyone who's on social security ... I realize you might not know this but junk food is more cost effective in a family then buying healthy...

 

[SwimExpert]

I can understand a ban on smoking in enclosed common areas, but I don't care what people do behind their own closed doors. So no, it isn't reasonable to ask people not to smoke in their apartments.

Yes it is. Owners have a right to prohibit indoor smoking by tenants, just like they have the right to prohibit pets. That being said, the federal government shouldn't be doing this. Leave it to the state and local governments.

 

[TNHarley]

But they must keep on trying to achieve the totalitarian state.

Next up: banning junk food in public housing.

They probably should. Probably receive food stamps. Why should I pay for their junk food?

Lets look at your Idea ... when I go to the super market I look at making some sort of salad to make as a side dish by the time I'm done it will cost me up to twenty dollars ... if you look at all the bad junk food you can buy for 20 dollars, in my state you can buy just about a weeks of junk food side dishes ... the problem we have here is the healthy food cost too much ... ask anyone who's on social security ... I realize you might not know this but junk food is more cost effective in a family then buying healthy...

I completely agree.
I think food stamps should go back to the way they were. The basics. Dried beans and shit. Coke, steak and cinnamon rolls is bullshit. If they want that stuff, they can get a second part time job.

 

[billyerock1991]

But they must keep on trying to achieve the totalitarian state.

Next up: banning junk food in public housing.

They probably should. Probably receive food stamps. Why should I pay for their junk food?

the guy that i mention in my early post gets 1400 dollars a month through SSDI when he sign up for food stamps he was told he made too much money to get food stamps...I can't imagine how that's too much money... but according to our state that's too much money to get food stamps

 

[TNHarley]

I can understand a ban on smoking in enclosed common areas, but I don't care what people do behind their own closed doors. So no, it isn't reasonable to ask people not to smoke in their apartments.

Yes it is. Owners have a right to prohibit indoor smoking by tenants, just like they have the right to prohibit pets. That being said, the federal government shouldn't be doing this. Leave it to the state and local governments.

I think that would depend on who pays for it..

 

[SwimExpert]

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to provide one of those "smokeless ashtrays" to each apartment?

Those things are a joke.

 

[billyerock1991]

But they must keep on trying to achieve the totalitarian state.

Next up: banning junk food in public housing.

They probably should. Probably receive food stamps. Why should I pay for their junk food?

Lets look at your Idea ... when I go to the super market I look at making some sort of salad to make as a side dish by the time I'm done it will cost me up to twenty dollars ... if you look at all the bad junk food you can buy for 20 dollars, in my state you can buy just about a weeks of junk food side dishes ... the problem we have here is the healthy food cost too much ... ask anyone who's on social security ... I realize you might not know this but junk food is more cost effective in a family then buying healthy...

I completely agree.
I think food stamps should go back to the way they were. The basics. Dried beans and shit. Coke, steak and cinnamon rolls is bullshit. If they want that stuff, they can get a second part time job.

not all people can work a second job ... not all people can even work a first job... its not a case of they need to work to get what they buy, its a case that good healthy food cost too much

 

[Bonzi]

Is it reasonable to ask people not to smoke in their apartments? This is their home. Shouldn't they be able to smoke if they want to, in their home?


While many public housing buildings are already smoke-free, this policy may go national. It was announced on Thursday that a new ban on smoking in public housing is being considered. A ban on smoking would make cleaning and maintaining units far easier and cheaper, in addition to lowering fire risks.

Smoking would be prohibited in public housing homes nationwide under a proposed federal rule announced on Thursday, a move that would affect nearly one million households and open the latest front in the long-running campaign to curb unwanted exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

The ban, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, would also require that common areas and administrative offices on public housing property be smoke-free.

The impact of the prohibition would be felt most heavily by the New York City Housing Authority, which is known as Nycha and houses more than 400,000 people in about 178,000 apartments. Though it is the largest public housing agency in the country, it has lagged behind many of its smaller counterparts in adopting smoke-free policies.

more here
Christine Rousselle - Smoking May Be Banned in Public Housing

They want their cake and eat it too.

Don't want to upset the tobacco industry
Want to cater to the pussies that can't stand the smell of tobacco.

Outlaw the damn things or let it be permitted at the "owners" option.

This fucking country has become so fucking retarded I can hardly stand it anymore.

(PS - I'm not leaving to don't offer to help me pack.)
(PPS - I'm not a smoker)