Smoking ban plan for US public housing

BBC News ^ | November 12, 2015 | Sum Gai

[Old Grumpy]

“Smoking ban plan for US public housing”

That’s laughable! They’ll never pull it off.

[sparklite2]

It’s incredible. They can’t stop the inhabitants from turning their homes into slums, but getting them to stop smoking is doable.

[Vigilanteman]

Smoking is far less unhealthy than illicit sex, particularly homo sex. Maybe they ought to try banning those too.

[sockmonkey]

San Antonio Housing Authority went smoke free in all their Public Housing Units January 1, 2012. Julian was Mayor then.

[trebb]

I like it. Since I don't think the government should be in the "public housing" business, I think this will be an impetus for people to get out of public housing. It will also acquaint people with what "Nanny State" government feels like on a very personal level. I don't see a down side for this. Yes it's statist, but it's being statist to the very people who need to be upset with government control over their lives. Maybe they will learn?

Thank you....I can't figure out how all those who slammed it were so worried about the "rights" of the leeches who live off the taxpayers. I think the Founders had it right when they only allowed land owners (productive People) to vote....

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Exactly.

So no smoking in public housing. How will it be enforced? Will the government have free access to each unit? Will the feds have to get a warrant to enter a unit SWAT style to catch the occupants smoking in the bathroom?

This will not motivate smokers to leave public housing. They will smoke anyway.

Like it or not, each tenant should have the same rights in their home as we have in ours. Why not have smoke free units separated from the smoking units. Give the option.

We either believe in the rights of the individual or we don't. Those rights are not contingent on the individual not on welfare, not in public housing, not taking food stamps.

Besides, if by some miracle the feds are able to enforce it with a degree of success, we all know it will not stop in public housing. They will turn their attention to what we do in our homes.

[kearnyirish2]

“Like it or not, each tenant should have the same rights in their home as we have in ours.”

This is public housing; they aren’t in “their home”, but one we (the taxpayers) provide for them. If slots in these units are income-based, then how are these people buying cigarettes? Are we providing them as well?

[DiogenesLamp]

Thank you....I can't figure out how all those who slammed it were so worried about the "rights" of the leeches who live off the taxpayers. I think the Founders had it right when they only allowed land owners (productive People) to vote....

Absolutely agree, though nowadays I wouldn't require the ownership of land. In some large cities, it isn't practical because the costs are so extreme.

I would require the payment of Taxes. I would also preclude those people who receive their money from government (military excepted) from voting.

Voting for candidates that promise to increase your pay are a conflict of interest.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I don’t like paying for public housing or other welfare programs anymore than you or anyone else does.

It doesn’t change my opinion.

[kearnyirish2]

OK; I just know working people who can’t afford smokes anymore.

[wildbill]

How does this statement on their responsibility to protect residents square with the news today that the Obama administration is going to lift the ban on convicted criminals from public housing so they can provide housing for those guys they are going to release from prison?

Is second hand smoke more dangerous to old people and children that criminals with a 80% recidivism rate?

[Lumper20]

I agree. They asked for Gov control.