Posted on 01/26/2012 7:49:45 PM PST by Impala64ssa
Part of it may have been that these tenements are pretty cheaply made to begin with, and cigarette smoke gets out of the smoker’s apartment into everybody’s apartment whether or not they want it. And you know, with “second hand smoke” and all being such a hot topic. (It may not be all that dangerous but it’s a known nuisance and sometimes allergen. No need to burden the welfare doctors more with people who are allergic to their neighbor’s smoke.)
And part may be pure nanny, but the existence of the housing is nanny to begin with. Nobody living off of the nanny has any reason to complain when the nanny gets a little more nanniful.
They can still smoke pot though.
I hate lazy, self righteous, drug addicted, hippies that work the system and make life more difficult for honest hard working tax payers.
can anyone really imagine that people will stop smoking in these buildings........cigarette police on each floor??.....please.
The biggest danger may be from fires caused accidentally by cigarettes. The elites should be encouraging smoking to reduce life expectancy, in the interests of keeping Social Security going longer.
I've got to voice my adamant disagreement with that statement, HiTech. Welfare may not be in line with U.S. ideals, and you may despise it all you want. However, NOBODY loses their natural and/or Constitutional Rights just because they are on public assistance. The right to freedom of privacy in one's own home, and freedom to pursue happiness, even at the risk of cancer and emphysema, are not to be trifled with. These rulings of the various Housing Authorities mess with our Rights. Furthermore, they are another example of bureaucrats making regulations that have the force and effect of law, bypassing the legislature and public debate.
A weak case could be made for banning smoking if it could be proved that the second-hand smoke really is an irritant that other tenants must endure. There should at least be enclosed spaces in the housing complex for people to smoke if they want to. Otherwise, there will be bans on drinking in one's own home. Some companies already ban their employees from smoking, not just at work, but anywhere at all. This trend is dangerous and must stop. Are we free men and women or pawns of the State? That was the crux of our War of Independence, and it continues to be an issue today.
You just gotta love P.J...........think he was the one who said “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”.
Yah the government bureaucrats are gonna march right into the projects and order Jamaal to put out that cigarette.
RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.
Wait.. How broke are they if they can afford a 10 dollar a day smoking habit?
Where did they get the money for the smokes?
I am all for allowing people to smoke.
Just not in MY house.
And not with MY money.
How bout you?
In principle, the families don’t absolutely have to be there unless so ordered by a court or something like that. I say if you take from the nanny, then you got to take orders from the nanny that others might not have to put up with. With some kind of absolute limit, like they can’t make a sex slave out of you.
There's nothing conservative about watching taxpayer dollars go up in smoke, literally.
Just let me reiterate my main thesis. There is no justification in de-humanizing someone who is in need. Yes, there are alternatives, like sleeping in your car or on the sidewalk. A lot of people talk big about self-reliance until and unless they have been there or know good people who got bad breaks in life. And btw, shouldn't we similarly penalize all Food Stamp recipients? (about 1/3 of all families now). How about medicare and medicaid? Shouldn't the gov't be telling them how to live in every aspect, and have cigarette, alcohol, drug/porn/sex, and fatty-food police visit them every week? THINK about the implications before you let your disdain for low income people overturn your sense of justice.
But if we don’t smoke, how will all these progressive geniuses get all the tax money they put on tobacco to fund children’s health programs?
Liberals confuse me! lol
Of course. Question is, is the housing at least partly a chattel of the government? If it is, then the government can reasonably make rules about what can be done in the housing, along the lines of what a private apartment can enforce. It would be in the lease. They couldn’t do something like bar Democrats or Republicans, of course. But maybe they could bar the cooking of very stinky food or the burning of very stinky incense.
Maine became the first state to ban smoking in all low-income public housing.
It's not really their own home, now is it?
If the people supposedly in need are OK with the government taking money from my family to support them, I'm OK with the government telling these same people that they can't smoke in the housing that MY tax money is funding.
Not to mention, what’s Algore gonna grow on the family farm if everyone quits smoking?
This is the one and only time I support a smoking ban. If the people in public housing don’t like it then get the f*ck out!!
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.