U.S. to ban smoking in Public Housing

While it may seem like a good idea, however, here is the snag in the law, and there is no mention of such:

States that allow for medical marijuana and where it is legal, are they also going to stop people from doing such in their own home or kick them out? Are they going to kick out say a person who has cancer and is using such to ease the problems that go along with the treatment of the disease? What about people with glaucoma and other life altering diseases, where the use of such is showing to be a benefit in a medical wise to the person?

While it may seem like a good idea to stop such from happening, however, chances are it will be something that will be unenforceable by law enforcement and could result in lawsuits and claims of discriminations and cause a far bigger legal problems for both the people trying to enforce this law and every one else.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Enforcement isn't the issue. They don't care if its actually enforced or not. This is a propaganda stunt. Most people will never know if its enforced or not. Kinda like the smoking in cars with kids law.

Tired of Control Freaks

Trump will want to sell them cigarettes.

Seriously, it turns out their talking about prohibiting people smoking in their own homes! Not just around the complex in public.


I think that goes too far


What are they going to do start kicking down doors when they smell cigarette smoke in the hallway

Jail a guy or throw him on the street for having a pack of Kools? This is not sensible

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Yes and no. While it may seem like it, until some prosecutor or city government gets the proverbial stick up its, and then starts to enforce and use this law as an excuse. After all no one seems to want public housing in its back yard, how better to get rid of such then to have the means handed to them on a silver platter.

Think about it, an area of a large city that is up for urban renewal, but has public assisted housing in it with people living in it. Can't just bulldoze it down and so they could use this law, go in check, see's people smoking in the house, well now they can evict them from the property and take it over, and turn it over to a developer.

Laws are funny like that, cause some in government tend to be corrupt enough to abuse that situation.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

yes! There is a serious advantage to a pyrimid of laws. Its always better is average citizens can be made into criminals. Criminals can be managed through the use of violence (eviction). Average citizens are not so easy to control.

Tired of Control Freaks

Public Safety is a bleh agreement but here are some other views on the subject from my experience. If don't care to hear my story of being in public housing skip next paragraph.

I spent around a year in public housing. I moved into apartment with my wife and two kids. Apartment seemed nice but had bed bugs. Lossed all my previous furniture and moved to start over in trailer. Slowly my bank dwindled and to find out house had mold inside the walls and caused harm to my oldest child who needed surgery from massive swelling removed like 20 something lymph nodes in her throat mostly ruled to airborne particles. I was forced to move in with my father where four of us slept on floor in small apartment while we waited and saved. We got into public housing to try and use that time to catch back up.

Every month ciggeret butts was in the monthly housing paper everytime begging people to dispose properly for risk of fire but mainly to keep children from smoking them.

I am a smoker who smokes around a pack a day, Malbouro Red 100s and same goes for my wife. In 30 days that's $12.50 cent for two packs, so that's what.. $370 I think. My rent was highest bracket because my job paid $9.50 hour. It was $344 by the 5th if late was around $370-380. My habit was putting RENT into my lungs. Since then have switched to vape that puts cost to $125 month for wife and I, juice coils... This would apply pressure on people who are doing the same. Tennessee cigarettes are cheap, so cheap it's problem for police as bootleggers we are buy them here and sell in N.Y. and other northern States and with crazy profit. Usually with 300% turn around rate.

Not all but a lot of the people were major drug addicts. I never heard of heroin in my county until literally seeing obvious abusers. Meth heads, crack heads... and if you smoke meth, you smoke cigarettes.

In short, it's a habit. When you're down on your luck that's when sacrafices are made. I assured food on my table and saved up to get out and not mooch tax payers money. Smoking has a vice on people. It's addictive and hard to quit. It cost you usually 1/3rd of your income to die early.

If you're borderline homeless than you need to change things in your life. If you can afford to smoke you can afford to move and let the elderly in and those who suffer abuse and have had bad luck. Sadly most abuse the help they get. If we all were charitable and strong our taxes would decrease and lives would be better for us all. It's kinda has to be a law because it helps put in place safety and sometimes awakening.

It's easy to abuse... It's lazy mentality for some.Rules for us was...
YOU ARE IN!
If we win lottery or inherit large amount of money we could stay. If landed $30 hr job they couldn't evict me as long as I don't lie about new position.

If lossed or quit job rent would go to nothing and I would serve two-three days of community service. If I have Food Stamps this by passed even needing to do community service.

Some, just don't want to work. They don't see threat that if evicted there is no hope or help. There is no retirement plan or money because you never was forced to save that money through government plans like social security and medicade. When you're 60+ and can't work, you will need that money.

I don't really like it, i think its a bit brash to force people to not smoke or wear seat belts but all around it does and will save lives.

a reply to: Shr00mz

You mean that YOU made decisions and sacrifices in your life to secure your family's well-meaning. That is the way it should be brother.

Or are you thinking that when the government passes this law, all the poor will be better off? Remember the difference between making decisions and having them forced on you!

There will be unexpected consequences

Tired of Control Freaks

I am with the administration on this one.

I hope the inconvenience of going outside to smoke helps people cut back.

For sure, it will cost taxpayers less in a lot of ways...
Healthcare, of course.
Insurance on the units, of course.
Property cleaning fees as units turn over.
Carpets, curtains and surfaces last longer without the smoke and burn marks.
Legal issues...tenants forced to live in close proximity to smoke have plenty of ammunition with which to tie up HUD in court.

ETA: that is of course assuming people actually follow the regs.

I'm surprised it hadn't happened sooner, honestly.

a reply to: Willtell

Well, that's just it... it isn't really 'their own home'.

Many privately-owned apartments in my area don't allow smoking indoors.
Many allow it, but charge higher rent to smokers.

I have sympathy for the people this will impact. Especially those who have no other housing option.

If smoke didn't have a way of travelling through the ductwork to non-smoking apartments, I could even agree with you that it goes too far.

But, if you want to talk about rights, what about the rights of the folks who don't smoke, but can't get away from it because it's travelling from another apartment, or you have to walk through the smoky hallway to get through the building?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Yea, I agree. People should make their own sacrafices but its It's loose/loose thing. I just see things better by law. If it's best than it is. Sadly most people need that. They aren't you and I and make rational thought and decisions and it holds us back. I hate it honestly but I see this as just cause compared to "buckle up or ticket" it's not a ban but constantly getting them can cause you to loose your liscenes.

CANT STAND IT makes really great points as well.

Also people like my father actually has to vape because he became allergic to cigarette smoke and has trouble breathing when around ash trays and smoke. He also gets very ill from tar residue.

car rentals enforce no smoking because a lot of smokers are starting to get these allergies more rapidly.

a reply to: Shr00mz

I have a nephew that can't be around cig smoke, it will send him to the hospital, but then, there are other things that will send him to the hospital also. my sister went nuts trying to get everything that was triggering his asthma away from him, kicked out her husband's pipe and tobacco, scrubbed the entire house down once a week, kept him, or tried to, from playing in the dirt.....
guess what they were missing??? the pool that sat in back of their house! how many school systems will force their kids into swimming pools as part of gym class?
many of the things that he is supposed to stay away from will go through those ventilation systems just as easily as cig smoke does, at least you can smell the cig smoke. and it's really pretty surprising that many of the chemicals that are in the perfume, detergents, dryer sheets, incenses that he was reacting to seem to also be added to the cigarettes. I really have my doubts that removing the cigarette from those who are sensitive to such irritants is really going to help that many of them that much, since more than likely what they are reacting to in the cigarette if probably chemicals that have been added to them, of which are present in so many other common things that are in most households. And, I find it hard to believe that they really care about the health of those who are sensitive as long as they are allowing these companies to add these chemicals to so many of our products. Like I said, I grew up in a time when cigarette were socially acceptable, there were many more parents who smoked and there were many more places where they could smoke, including schools, and yet, I don't know of any of my classmates that were asthmatic or had trouble breathing. there is less cigarette smoke, but a heck of a lot more asthma cases, way more... and, there was a lot less chemicals in everything...

a reply to: CantStandIt

And you just surrendered! There are no longer any private homes at all. The government can now invade homes at will. And yes, if you think it doesn't apply to detached privately owned homes, you are wrong.

No matter how good the cause, the end does not justify the means

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Shr00mz

There is a hypothesis on the rise of allergies and asthma

Man's lungs evolved in the presence of smoke. This was of necessity as man needed fire to survive. When smoke was removed from our living environment, mostly through the use of natural gas heating, children who were not exposed to smoke developed "sensive lungs" and digestive systems.

Despite all the claims that "health" would improve when smoking was banned, it has not! The incidence of asthma has increased by 800 % in lock step with the decrease of smoking in the population.

And yes, the children of smokers get less asthma and less allergies. It has been proven scientific studies conducted in sweden and confirmed by surveys conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (World Health Organization).

The war on smoking was never about health. It was always about money, power and control.

My friends, may your chains sit lightly in your servitude.

Tired of Control Freaks

Of course they will have to ban guns - for public safety of course - The hell with the Second Amendment and the right to
self-defense -

And if you live in public housing you have no self to defend - YOU BELONG TO THE STATE The state owns all guns and is always there to protect you - especially from yourself !!!

Back to smoking and the elimination of your rights and the Constitution which the state [especially so called Liberals] want
to eliminate.

Here is a book written by a famous alternative MD who has written many books on health cures, many of which are controversial but effective
- And yes he was a smoker [cigars] and just died recently at the age of 89, Under the First Ammendmnt [free speech] this book is still legal - give the anti smoking, anti gun, anti Constitution control freaks [mostly liberals working for the
'common good, some would say Communists] enough time and money and this book will be banned [for 'the common good']:

"The Health Benefits of Tobacco: A Smoker's Paradox"

by Dr. William Douglass (Author)

The benefits of smoking tobacco have been common knowledge for centuries. From sharpening mental acuity to maintaining optimal weight, the relatively small risks of smoking have always been outweighed by the substantial improvement to mental and physical health. Hysterical attacks on tobacco notwithstanding, smokers always weigh the good against the bad and puff away or quit according to their personal preferences. Now the same anti-tobacco medical establishment that has spent billions demonizing the pleasure of smoking is providing additional reasons to smoke. Did you know that many of the countries the smoke the most, have the longest life span? This controversial books will have you thinking and talking for quite some time.

Not that I would suggest that anyone begin smoking if you don't - mainly becuase you will be on your way to becoming demonized by the state - the statism that wants to legalize pot to keep the population stoned and docile - Tobacco often stimulates people to think - Thinking people are a problem - harder to control !!!

Let 'them' continue - and soon Above Top Secret will also be baned - Stimulates thinking - A known threat to the common good

a reply to: underwerks

Don't live in state owned housing then.
Nobody is forced to live in what we call council housing here in the UK.
The rents are subsidised by the taxpayer so follow the rules. Tough #.
Plenty of private landlords have smoking restrictions in the tenancy agreement, why not the state which offers cut price rental properties.
No, if you don't like it then # off and rent somewhere else.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Don't rent your home off the government then, that is a choice.
Tough # I say, I've never chosen housing provided by government but if I did I would conform with the tenancy agreement.

Do you cry tears that some private landlords have rules about smoking as well?
Nobody is forced into signing a tenancy.

a reply to: grainofsand

People who rent off private landlords who have non-smoking clauses in their tenancy agreements do so as a conscious consumer choice. People who believe that non-smoking clauses are a loss of free choice can choose to live in buildings where landlords do not have such clauses.

No tears to cry here. Choice is not something to be rallied against. People will vote with their dollar (as they now do for bars, casinos and bingo halls). Judging by the numbers of such facilities that have had to close their doors forever for lack of profitability, I am guessing that landlords will also get tired of not having tenants and ultimately decide to remove such clauses. However, it a guess of let the market decide.

In public housing however, what you are suggesting is that smokers should not avail themselves of government funded housing. Nice. Now there's a reason to discriminate isn't there. Government services for non-smokers only. I wonder how long that will last.

I guess you also think that smokers should not avail themselves of medicare either.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Oh behave, I'm saying that if the state provides cut-price subsidised housing then nobody is forced to live there.
The state is free to impose whatever restrictions it likes as any other landlord.
Smoke staining causes extra work when tenants move out, it is why private landlords are generally against it these days.

I smoke myself, but I own my home so I do what the # I like, if I rented I would agree with the tenancy I chose to sign.
Tough #. Nobody is forced to sign the tenancy agreement.

*Edit*
And don't be ridiculous, smokers are free to rent the homes, just not smoke in them, same as they can't keep a herd of sheep or hold dance parties. Such a whiner.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

'The government can now invade homes at will'

Are you speaking of the article in the OP, or of something else? I didn't see anything in the linked article to indicate the regulations allow for unannounced entry and search... did I miss that?

It's not right if it's not 100% enforced. All alcohol products higher than 10% should also be banned (or maybe just completely), just like certain fat foods and even driving because that causes the most accidents. Plus people will have to excercise more and no more extreme sports. We could also ration it all with technological means like limiting internet time for all those addicted to porn/gaming, limiting the amount of fast food/alcohol.

Then we need to go on from the material realm and all it's dangers to one's health on to the mental realm and ban all religion for starters and anything non-scientific.