[Responsibility2nd]

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 wouldn’t 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

[1rudeboy]

What can possibly go wrong?

[Responsibility2nd]

[Uncle Ike]

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....

[Mrs.Z]

Tobacco yes, but they won’t stop the crack smoking in the buildings.

[Grunthor]

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[TaxPayer2000]

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.

[Envisioning]

....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

[Pearls Before Swine]

Gangbangers and illegals won’t be affected by this at all.

[cripplecreek]

Dependency is slavery.

[dfwgator]

If they’re on public assistance, they don’t need to be spending taxpayer money on smokes.

[Steamburg]

Some how I can’t get too worked up over the freedoms of those receiving public housing. Particularly, considering the cost of tobacco taxes. (a 2 pack a day smoker is paying almost six dollars a day or 180 a month in taxes) We are subsidizing their housing, they are paying taxes back to the Gov’t in Tobacco Tax and the only beneficiary is the gov’t which gets their votes for keeping them in public housing.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin: “Never let the poor be comfortable in their condition or they will never be motivated to change it.”

[Michael.SF.]

Just convert the cone of silence to the 'cone of smokers':

[Mom MD]

What everyone fails to notice is these people have a pack per day (at least) habit and live in public housing. I’m not a smoker but a pack per day is roughly $150/month. How can they afford this while I am paying for their housing? That’s the real outrage.

[silverleaf]

wait until they ban french fries!

[Saltmeat]

If you are a smoker the solution is simple. Move out of public housing. They seem to lack money for rent, but do have money for tobacco, booze, drugs, gold teeth, fancy rims and tattoos. Go figure. They get no sympathy from me.

[Brytani]

Mixed opinion on this one.

On one hand of course is the huge issue that we are paying for these people to have a roof over their heads, food on their tables, healthcare, daycare, etc etc. Cigarettes have become so incredibly expensive I have to question how anyone on welfare can afford to smoke but can’t afford to support themselves.

With that said, I have a huge issue with the government telling people what legal activities they can or can not engage in in the privacy of their own homes. Those who do not see a slippery slope only need to consider legislation that has been passed for years that have allowed the government to intrude into our homes, into our lives, the Constitution be damned, all for the current cause of the day.

Legislation has been proposed to outlaw smoking in cars when minors are present or even if minor children will at some point ride in that vehicle.

Legislation has been proposed that would outlaw smoking completely in multi-unit housing even in cases where the units are privately owned.

Give a politician a cause and more often than not they will propose a law that will infringe on our rights.

Once the camel gets a nose under the tent it’s impossible to stop him from fully entering.

Consider this before cheering on another way the government can go into peoples homes and regulate activity; you may hate smoking, but guaranteed one day there will be a law making something you enjoy illegal, if it hasn’t happened already.

[dforest]

They will smoke anyway and nobody will be able to do anything about it.

They have nowhere to go and they are supposedly poor. They aren’t going to kick them out on the street.

[5Madman2]

San Antonio City government consists of Political Pygmys and Mental Midgets. They focus on the “Critically Insignificant” garbage while the infrastrucure goes in the Crapper.

Fighting for Soccer stadiums, against bar chains with Bikini topped waitresses, while the roads are degenerating into Third World Donkey paths. They keep using the phrase “World Class City”. Yup, Turd World.

The recently took a stand and banned smoking in bars, which is much like banning Farting in restrooms

[ArrogantBustard]

public housing residents in San Antonio soon will add one more: their own homes.

If it's "public" housing, IT'S NOT THEIR OWN HOME.

Wanna smoke at home? Git off yer fat arses, git out of taxpayer owned housing, and git YER OWN!

[library user]

Norma Garcia, who lives in the Wheatley Courts, smokes in front of her THE TAXPAYER's apartment.

There - fixed it!