Posted on 11/12/2015 3:16:36 AM PST by Drango
Smoking would be prohibited in public housing homes nationwide under a proposed federal rule to be 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 federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, would also require that common areas and administrative offices on public housing property be smoke-free. ~ snip
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Smokers! Them crack dealers will KILL ya!
If it doesn’t apply to Section 8 housing, it’s a REAL ban.
If they are smoking in ‘public housing’ someone AFTER them may have to breath the smoke particles that are in the walls of the home when they move in.
Just another law that will be ignored.
Correction: Regardless if Gary pays full or partial, until he pays for his OWN domicile, there are rules for the renter from the rentee.
Nail on head, You da hammer!
Indeed. A pack of cigarettes costing about $5.50 for a full year is almost $2,000 per year. Add in the cost of illegal drugs to the equation.
It's goofy to think that taxpayers should subsidize people who have disposable income.
For those of you who think this is a great idea, let’s take the logic one step further: let’s ban drinking, smoking, and eating fatty foods by social security recipients.
Social security is just another form of welfare, and of course smoking, drinking and consuming fatty foods are not healthy habits. And they’re all expensive. So let’s impose those health based restrictions on the elderly too.
If it saves one elderly person, it’s worth it.
There is a lot of public housing in my county and my first question is, WHO is going to enforce a “no-smoking” law in those enclaves? It’s never gonna happen, just like texting while driving, you may REDUCE it but you will never stop it.
Well we are subsidizing Obama’s current digs, he should also be subject to the ban.
You pay into Social Security.
LOL!
The problem I have with this is that you start with the vulnerable Americans and eventually they will expand to all Americans. What is next? No allowing BBQ in public Housing? Carbon after all. Yes I know that some people probably should just eat canned kidney beans but the big picture of government getting involved in life I do’t like. I especially find it amazing that the Democrats are the ones taking away personal rights.
Ban Public Housing.
About 2.2 million low income people live in public housing. Time to tighten up the income requirements on them. If they have disposable income they need to stop sucking on the taxpayer teat.
LOL! 0bama actually HAS lived in one form of ‘subsidized housing’ or another his entire life!
Never worked a day, has had all of his needs met by numerous SUCKERS he’s conned along the way...had his Chicago luxury digs bought for him by someone else...
And finally, ‘We The People’ have been carrying his arse for the past seven years!
Aarrrgghhh! Affirmative Action Grifter in Chief!
“Social security is just another form of welfare...”
No, it is not in the context you reference. And also too, I’m not in favor of public housing at all. I would like to see it ended immediately if not sooner. No need for any banning of anything in public housing if there is no public housing.
I do comment, however, that once you ban the tobacco, you have opened the door to banning whatever, and it might as well be illicit drug use. And come to think of it, illicit drug use is ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW, and we can hardly say the gov’t has a handle on that!
So, those of us who seem to be cheering this measure on, I believe or at least I am, are intent on the rhetoric and irony of it all, and with a dash of sarcasm thrown in.
Those on AFDC pay taxes as well. Excise taxes on cigarettes and booze for example.
We need to stop repeating the myths that the left uses to prop up the welfare state. There is no separate lockbox or account that you own. What you get out of social security, if anything, is completely at the pleasure of the political class. If they want to add abstinence from eating salt as a qualification, they can do so. If the political class wanted to eliminate social security entirely, they could do so. Having paid into social security you own nothing, other than a stack of tax receipts,
Private apartments can ban tobacco use, so why shouldn’t the government have the same right?
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.