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.
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.
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.