Posted on 05/22/2014 9:08:50 AM PDT by Drango
However, it seems to me the decent thing to do would be to "grandfather" the current tenants and only apply the smoking ban to new rentals. Eventually they would get their precious "smoke-free" building, and they also wouldn't have to evict any old indigent folks who've lived in their apartment for years and have no where else to go at this point in their life.
When I was working my way through college by working at a convenience store it was my experience that most customers were on some sort of government relief. So they probably pay way more than the average price for cigarettes. I would suspect the true amount is closer to $3000 that gets spent for cigarettes each year. After all, when you're spending other people's money, price is not a consideration.
I’m with you. I understand all the arguments, but still see it as more paternalism. Seattle Housing Authority has had one of these bans for a couple of years. I will have to check to make sure, but think they also have a gun ban. Remember that a lot of these buildings are in bad neighborhoods, where elderly residents have to walk to do errands, etc.
I am still trying to find out if SHA has a weapons ban. All I have determined is that HUD leaves the decision up to the localities.
I still see this stuff as a social engineering issue. It’s very similar to the problem of people buying food others deem unnutritious with EBT. Ideally, people are paying for their own food, end of problem, but until we live in a perfect world...
Think of it this way. Anything that makes the useless leeches more uncomfortable means a greater chance they’ll get angry and decide they’d rather pay for stuff themselves to have more freedom. We ALL win, if the rules make them so miserable they’d rather work!
SO because they are living on public assistance, we have the right to monitor and ban their personal habits or behaviors?
If they are getting MY money. Then YES. we should have some say in their life style.
Drug test um to.
You want to smoke? Fine. Smoke.. Go out side of MY building and smoke.
Simple eh?
Those making these rules DO know best, after all...
“It’s BS,” she says. “It’s against our legal rights as a U.S. citizen.”
When you volunteer to live on a plantation, you shouldn’t complain about being enslaved.
For a one trick pony, I’m starting to agree with you more. If the “residents” in Public Housing don’t like the smoking ban they are free to buy their own housing where they can smoke as much as they like.
“SO because they are living on public assistance, we have the right to monitor and ban their personal habits or behaviors? “
Uh, yeah.
Yeah I can imagine that. 100 per cent I can.
“However, where I do take issue, is this is the same “government” that has forced other property owners to implement these same “guidelines” whether they wish to or not - based on the same bogus information and scare tactics”
..
I sometimes feel as if I’m living in alternative universe.The much maligned fifties were years of lots of freedoms,many now long gone.
Things weren’t perfect then,they never will be,but it was a much more tolerant,respectful society.
.
I’m baffled why, with all the crime, drugs and gangstaz that accompany public housing programs, the authorities are worried about tobacco.
Nanny State PING!
“I’m baffled why, with all the crime, drugs and gangstaz that accompany public housing programs, the authorities are worried about tobacco”
It is rather astonishing,isn’t it? The inmates are running the asylum.
.
It’s their priorities...
Want to smoke in your apartment, get your own place.
Did this include the freedom to mooch of the taxpayers and have them subsidize your rent?
Because the attack continues on all fronts. Too many people think all these command and control tactics are isolated from one another, when the reality is that they are all part of the Progressive Grand Stategery.
Lol that was to the point. I think that if a person is living off us tax-payers we have the right to dictate what kind of food items they should be allowed to purchase (economical and beneficial not luxuries)and what kind of housing they’ll live in (again economy and to code) however I don’t feel I have the right to tell them what they can and cannot do within the confines of their home. As long as it’s legal. If some unemployed or disabled person can gather 5 bucks for a pack of smokes, I don’t have a problem with them smoking em’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.