Skip to comments.
SAHA (San Antonio Housing Authority) to ban smoking in public housing
San Antonio Express News ^
| 07/27/2011
| Karisa King
Posted on 07/27/2011 6:54:41 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Chris Tatum smokes on the front porch of his Wheatley Courts apartment. Tatum said he tries to avoid smoking inside the apartment, around his stepchildren. Under the prohibition, he wouldnt even be allowed to smoke there. Photo: Bob Owen/rowen@express-news.net / rowen@express-news.net
Norma Garcia, who lives in the Wheatley Courts, smokes in front of her apartment. Photo: Bob Owen/rowen@express-news.net / rowen@express-news.net
Norma Garcia, who lives in the Wheatley Courts, smokes in front of her apartment. Photo: Bob Owen/rowen@express-news.net / rowen@express-news.net
To: Responsibility2nd
What can possibly go wrong?
2
posted on
07/27/2011 6:56:02 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: Responsibility2nd
3
posted on
07/27/2011 6:57:43 AM PDT
by
Responsibility2nd
(The views and opinions expressed in this post are true and correct. Deal with it)
To: Responsibility2nd
First they came for the druggies, and you cheered because, well, they’re *druggies* and don’t need no steenkin’ rights anyway....
Then they came for the smokers, and you cheered, because smoking is just icky....
Then they came for the fatties, and you cheered, because who really wants to look at all those fat people??
You’re next - cheer about that....
4
posted on
07/27/2011 7:00:05 AM PDT
by
Uncle Ike
(Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
To: 1rudeboy
So, you can't smoke in the apartment and, as I understand it, not outside your apartment. You MUST go to a designated smoking area!
I don't care if this is public housing. It's still their castle! (paid for by us) What a bunch of BS!
5
posted on
07/27/2011 7:00:05 AM PDT
by
Road Warrior ‘04
(I miss President Bush greatly! Palin in 2012! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
To: Responsibility2nd
Tobacco yes, but they won’t stop the crack smoking in the buildings.
6
posted on
07/27/2011 7:01:00 AM PDT
by
Mrs.Z
To: Responsibility2nd
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
7
posted on
07/27/2011 7:02:42 AM PDT
by
Grunthor
(Faster than the speed of smell.)
To: Mrs.Z
Tobacco (legal) yes, but they wont stop the crack (illegal) smoking in the buildings.
Just clarifying...
8
posted on
07/27/2011 7:03:03 AM PDT
by
Road Warrior ‘04
(I miss President Bush greatly! Palin in 2012! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
To: Responsibility2nd
A survey sent to all 6,029 households in January shows that a large majority of tenants support the no-smoking policy. Of the 200 residents who responded, 81 percent said they liked the idea, while 17 percent opposed it, and 2 percent said they had no opinion. LOL! A LARGE majority! of the 200 people who responded! 162 people out of a survey sent to 6,209 households.
To: Responsibility2nd
....public housing residents in San Antonio soon will add one more: their own homes As a smoker I oppose any smoking bans, but, this is NOT their own home. It is PUBLIC housing, government owned. You want to do what you want in YOUR house, get off the government tit and buy your own house.
/rant off
10
posted on
07/27/2011 7:06:22 AM PDT
by
Envisioning
( Call me a racist................, one more time......................)
To: Uncle Ike
First they came for the druggies, and you cheered because, well, it was a druggie that stuck a gun in my face and stole my wallet.
“Then they came for the smokers, and you cheered, because smoking killed both of my grandparents.
“Then they came for the fatties, and you cheered, because who really wants to look at all those fat people??”
Please. No one is coming for the fatties. They’re hard to kidnap.
11
posted on
07/27/2011 7:06:28 AM PDT
by
Grunthor
(Faster than the speed of smell.)
To: Bushbacker1
I don’t care if this is public housing. It’s still their castle! (paid for by us) What a bunch of BS!
________________________________________
Don’t contradict yourself. If you and I pay for their “castle”, then you don’t think we have a say in what goes on there?
12
posted on
07/27/2011 7:06:30 AM PDT
by
Responsibility2nd
(The views and opinions expressed in this post are true and correct. Deal with it)
To: 1rudeboy
"What can possibly go wrong"
Oh yes, let's see some inspector telling the local MS 13 gang bangers to stop smoking. Exchanging gun smoke for tobacco smoke if they are lucky. A machete might also be used.
13
posted on
07/27/2011 7:06:44 AM PDT
by
Truth29
To: Responsibility2nd
Gangbangers and illegals won’t be affected by this at all.
To: Responsibility2nd
15
posted on
07/27/2011 7:08:13 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
To: Bushbacker1
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
16
posted on
07/27/2011 7:08:19 AM PDT
by
Grunthor
(Faster than the speed of smell.)
To: Bushbacker1
I’m all for it, the reason being private property rights. The housing authority owns it, they can do as they wish.
17
posted on
07/27/2011 7:09:04 AM PDT
by
kickonly88
(I love fossil fuel!)
To: cripplecreek
I’m all for making the dependent life “not so comfortable”,
so that, perhaps, these folks would look for a better way to live.
18
posted on
07/27/2011 7:10:09 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
To: Bushbacker1
If you've ever lived in an apartment above a smoker you might feel differently about smoke in a multi-unit building.
I lived for a while in an apartment above a man who it turns out was going through a divorce. He would sit for hours right under my bedroom chain smoking. I couldn't even go into that room. My entire apartment smelled like an ashtray and I had to seal the bedroom off with tape.
You will probably suggest that I should have opened the windows. Right. Chimney effect. Worse.
It's still their castle!
If they want a castle let them go out and get a job and pay for it. I don't want to pay for their castle.
19
posted on
07/27/2011 7:11:21 AM PDT
by
ladyjane
To: Responsibility2nd
If they’re on public assistance, they don’t need to be spending taxpayer money on smokes.
20
posted on
07/27/2011 7:11:47 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson