Posted on 11/30/2016 6:18:03 PM PST by Sean_Anthony
The policy will be viewed as punitive and cruel and noncompliance will be widespread. It is incredibly foolish and unkind.
The U.S. Department of Homewrecking and Utopian Development (HUD) said it plans to forbid smoking in public housing units to protect millions of low-income tenants from the ridiculously over-hyped effects of secondhand tobacco smoke.
The ban will affect more than 940,000 units of housing subsidized by federal taxpayers.
“Every child deserves to grow up in a safe, healthy home free from harmful second-hand cigarette smoke,” head HUD honcho Julián Castro said in a statement.
Can’t smoke, but shooting other bruthas will still be ok.
Unfortunately, you’re not entirely wrong. I look at the folks that actually do take care of their pets and it’s wrong to penalize everyone just because some don’t do the right thing.
Heh.
Go for it, 0b0z0! The more Democrap slaves you PO at you, the better it is for America.
Cigarettes or crack?
If I were benevolent dictator, any able-bodied person on welfare would ...
************************************
...be required to work at least 25 hours a week doing community service under the direction and control of County Sheriffs’ Depts., to remain qualified for welfare.
That includes cleaning parks, overgrown cemeteries, painting, picking up trash on roadways, etc.
Aside... Julian Castro is a POS and so is his twin!
A lot of them make their own since obamy put the 150% tax on cigs. Bulk cig tobacco was affected too so they tobacco companies started cutting it a little coarser and call it pipe tobacco which didn’t get the big tax like all other tobacco did. You can buy cig tubes with filters and a machine to stuff the tobacco in the tubes and make your own for less than $10 a carton.
I disagree with having to buy their pet food...or cigarettes.
These freebies are just part of the “guaranteed minimum income” crap; we pay to buy liquor, cigarettes, and scratch-offs for many of these parasites. If the government must be in the business of sheltering ne’er-do-wells, let them run them like prisons: No smoking.
FRegards,
A smoker
But they’ll still be able to smoke weed?
I agree with you on the booze and cigs. But if they have a kid and the kid wants a pet and actually takes care of it, I can’t see objecting to it. But the Feds don’t have any business being in the area of subsidizing welfare cases, anyhow. That should be in private (church) hands.
“But if they have a kid and the kid wants a pet and actually takes care of it, I can’t see objecting to it.”
—
You’re kidding!
We’ve always had dogs and kids-——guess who did most of the dog care?
.
Notice what I underlined. I have had cats since I was a small child and I took care of them with some exceptions, but closely watched them for any health problems.
You think we should be buying pet food for people who can’t or won’t buy their own? I’m sorry, but pets are basically a luxury; I realized that years ago when 1) we were caring for a relative’s dog and had to pay vet bills, and 2) foreign students from various countries described how only wealthy people in their home countries had them.
he smokes and he lives in government housing
“We” shouldn’t be buying squat. I said the Feds need to be out of the welfare business. That’s a local concern.
That’s fine; at that point it is up to the owner/administrator of the property.
If they are in subsidized housing on the public dime, they can’t AFFORD to smoke!
Is that by dollar volume, individual units sold, or some other measure?
“Is that by dollar volume, individual units sold, or some other measure? “
By dollar AMOUNT!
Number one for none ebt is milk!
The sheer cruelty and evil of this policy has not really addressed on this thread.
Let’s walk through it a little bit.
The main argument against smoking in public housing is second hand smoke leaks through the walls and vents and effects non-smokers.
However, this could be easily mitigated, particularly in public housing projects that have separate buildings which could be designated smoking or non-smoking buildings.
The fact that mitigation is not allowed or considered gives away the true motivation of the anti-smoking forces.
They want to control the lives of others and believe they have a right to do so.
Imagine a disabled person who has smoked all their life and either chooses not to or will not stop smoking. It is part of their routine and one of their few minor pleasures in life.
Now they are expected to go outside in winter conditions with no covered smoking area.
This is vicious and cruel.
This is the liberal authoritarian mindset at its naked worst.
It is raw evil.
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.