It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. to ban smoking in Public Housing

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I never understood how we allow people on public assistance to be able to purchase luxury's like smokes and alcohol. I mean I know there is no real way to stop them from doing it but if you need assistance from the American taxpayer just to be able to afford the necessities in life why do we allow them to purchase luxury's.

Its like your buddy borrowing money to pay the rent then he goes out for a steak dinner with his girl. Like WTF!!!!!

If you need assistance just to keep a roof over your head then parts of your life need to be regulated a little more to ensure your making the proper choices. You don't want people in your life telling you want you can and cannot buy? Then pay for your own damn housing and food. I feel like im taking crazy pills here.

At the same time, you can't paint everyone in public housing or on public assistance with the same brush as people who are abusing it. That wouldn't be right either.

Depends too on what you consider luxuries. A pack of Pall Malls and a Colt 45 aren't exactly luxuries.


Anything that you don't need to survive is a luxury.

-cars
-cellphones
-smokes
-Alcohol

The list can go on and on but these are some of the basics. Anything the Gov can apply a luxury tax to should be on this list. Like someone said before you want to live under someones else's roof you abide by their rules. You don't want to abide by their rules? Then pay for your own necessities.

Look up the luxury tax and you will have your list of everything the government deems a non-essential for survival.

Yeah I'm not going to take the governments word on what it takes to "survive". That's worked out so well everywhere else in the past.

Not everyone is abusing the system. What about the people that live in the projects but get up and work everyday? Should they be held to the same standards as people who game the system?

I think it's better to give the same freedom of choice to everyone, and let people make their own decisions and live by them. The other option is more government encroachment in people's lives.

That extra little bit of money that would be saved that no taxpayers would ever really see isn't worth the loss of freedoms to me.


I understand that not everybody is abusing the system. But the fact still stands if you need government assistance (AKA: my tax dollars) just to keep a roof over your head than you shouldn't be allowed to purchase things not necessary to survival.

Or else why the hell am I paying full price for my housing or my power or anything. The government should be giving me handouts to so I can fuel my habits as well.




posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

They are also in the process to ban vapes and e's and like devices as hookahs etc as well.

Also, the drug testing pre-employment already embraces alcohol testing...and is moving to smoking as well. Do any of those...you wont get hired.

*Additionally, in Michigan smoking is banned everywhere. Restaurants, Bars, sporting and concert and festival events..and soon bus stops and public parks....unless an area is specified for smokers.
edit on 1-12-2016 by mysterioustranger because: addition



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

But is Still Ok to Smoke Weed , Crack , Opium , and Hash in the Pee Infested Hallways of Public Housing . Thanks Obama !



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Health Nazis overstepping their boundaries. Welcome to germerica people.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I think people should be allowed to smoke, as long as after they inhale, they don't exhale into my intake.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I can't actually believe that I am agreeing with this! I believe that if you want to smoke and do not OWN the shelter you are within...you should smoke outside. Now, admittedly, I have a sheltered smoke room for the die hards...guests with more control can blow their smoke up my chimney flue. As an ex cigarette smoker and house cleaner, the stench and stain of cigarettes is disgusting! cigars and pipe tobacco are not as bad...but still can leave smells if overused in close spaces. They just don't seem to have the chemical coating that is harder to clean.

Admittedly, if you want freedom to smoke as you wish...stop smoking and save the money to add to your down payment on your own home.
otherwise...just step outside.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

How charming!!!!

The moral majority usurping government power to enforce their will on the minority WITHIN THEIR OWN HOMES!

What a precedent to set. I am confident that this has nil possibilities of backfiring. Now way. This is the treatment that is reserved for those disgusting smokers and would never, ever, ever by used against the "moral majority" and upstanding citizens like most of the people in this thread.

Granting government the right to enforce laws against the use of a legal product within your own homes.

Now what could go wrong with that????

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Yup.

Slippery slope... it's how they've slowly worked it thus far.



Here in Canada they started out with public venues (restaurants, bars, etc), then they implemented it with government subsidized public housing/low income housing.

And then the lawmakers pushed it for regular rented apartments, duplexes, row houses, etc.

Basically any kind of buildings where neighbours shared attached walls with each other. All that has to happen is for someone to smell cigarette smoke, report it to the landlord/management agency and you'll either get an eviction notice (if you're renting) or a hefty fine (if you own).

Roughly 40% or more of all apartment buildings, duplexes, row houses, and even owned condo complexes across Canada are now no smoking too... and more and more are jumping on the bandwagon every day.

It's not a mandatory law for all of these places across the board yet, but the lawmakers have been trying to push it for a number of years now.

It's only a matter of time.

Four or five years ago, there was talk about also trying to push it for privately owned detached houses as well. Funny how people sat up and suddenly took notice of what was slowly but surely taking place (now that their private homes were the new target), and raised a stink about it.

But give them time. They'll eventually figure out how to word it so that more people will jump on board with the idea.

Lawmakers and government telling you what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own home behind closed doors (rented, owned, or otherwise). Yee haw.

Start with public venues, then public housing, then rented apartments, then owned apartments.... Slowly but surely working their way up that ladder.




Can't believe how many people continue to keep taking the bait... one little nibble (read: law) at a time.




posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Smoke damage will prevent future residents. People in Apartments aren't allowed by lease conditions to smoke inside normally. My Apts actually bans smoking 'entirely'.

If people do smoke inside(I do, by the door), they literally have to repaint the walls or recarpet in many cases for the musty smell to subside.

What's interesting is the seriousness in the lease conditions compared to their 'enforcement' however. They've mentioned it once in the 4 years I've lived here. I see some of the maintenance people smoke too.
edit on 1-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

Yup I just love how the government caters to the tastes of some people that want to punish the poor for perceived wrongs. And use that hatred to muscle in on them.

We all know that the money for anti-smoking is running low and the anti-smokers at the top are already jumping on to the anti-alcohol, anti-obesity wagon.

Its only a matter of time now that people have been properly conditioned to accept that health "concerns" trump all - even the constitutional rights.

Isn't it funny how they bring out the "damage to apartments" issue. They just don't understand that it you do it smokers, there are others who are also know for damages - like people with children or people in wheelchairs etc.

Being a smoker is unrelated to most job qualifications but if employers are allowed to discriminate against smokers -then I guess parents are next. Think of the costs of all that pregnancy leave and sick days for child care when the children are sick.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The Apartments make sense. Possession is 9/10 of the law and apartments are actually normally accommodating. It's business. They're also allowed to be sticklers. If they don't want a smoker, that's not any different than the 3 that rejected me for owning a Siberian Husky.

However, the purpose of these public housing is to get people 'on their feat' and get them out into the world again correct?

Smoking in this sense would inhibit further housing for people trying to change their lives for them to be reconditioned.

Reconditioning an apartment is a little different, you're just putting out one business, and there are many other options.

I only mentioned this because I didn't notice anyone comment on it.
edit on 1-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

No the apartments don't make sense. Here is my reasoning.

non-smokers complain of the smell of smoke. People also complain of the smell of the cuisines of different cultures. (or candles or skunk mj). If a landlord wants to get rid of someone of a foreign culture, the precedent is set that you can evict if other people can complain of smell.

A legal product is a legal product. Anti-smokers are getting around the laws governing this legal product using social platforms (propaganda to exaggerate hatred of smokers and smoke smell) and then soft social laws to impose their will on others.

How far does this go....what can be done to pander to people who claim to be sensitive to electricity, wifi, purfumes etc.

What is being destroyed here is a sense of tolerence towards our neighbours and a sense of entitlement is being supported. If I have a medical excuse (no matter how far fetched), I get that special little thrill that comes from imposing myself on my neighbours.

Along the way, we are actually encouraging mental illness.

What a bonus.
;
Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

By the way, if smell is bothering a neighbour or smoke can enter one unit from another, this poses a fire hazard that the Landlord is legally obliged to address (not to mention cockroaches and bedbugs). By evicting the tenant, the landlord avoids his responsiblities, people die in fires and, in general, the world is much better place to live (sarc)

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Well that's fine and dandy when it comes to apartments, I don't draw nearly any of those same conclusions. Someone else smoking doesn't effect you, until it does. It's the smoker that imposes on the neighbor that can smell it, nice twist though. Especially because they can't respond until you've already imposed them in their own house. Even then the issue is the smell of smoke for the next resident, not the neighbors, to the owners.

However, this was to draw contrast to the public housing part of my post that you didn't address. If someone smokes inside, less people are filtered through this 'system' of temporary housing.
edit on 1-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

So you really think that non-smokers are choosing to live in the streets rather than share housing with smokers. that if you evict smokers, non - smokers will finally rally to get themselves off the street and finally get a share of publi housing? Wow - just like the non-smokers would rally to bars when they finally kicked those filthy smokers out. Except, it didn't work out that way. In the and canada, about half the bars closed (sorry don't have the number for the States)

Do you really think that people will claim that the local drug dealer is smoking? When they know that violence will likely result?
of course they won't. That is how people get to deal drugs in public housing.

These are the smokers who will be evicted

www.inquisitr.com...

If you read the article, Andy did smoke outside but not the obligatory 10 feet away. He just couldn't make it. I am sure that the neighbours feel real good about themselves right now as they go about spouting anti-smoking propaganda to justify their vile behavior.

Gosh - I guess being a smoker and all, he really doesn't deserve public housing

This is the society being built by propaganda and hate. For all the talk of tolerence, it is really only extended to "approved" minorities and smokers just don't qualify. We must submit to the will of the majority or we will end up jobless and living in the street.

Now if I was to compare this to gay people (and trust me, I have no beef with gay people), they also live a lifestyle choice. Yes I know that sexual inclination is NOT a choice but your decision to indulge most certainly is. You can choose to be celibate. But since they are an "approved" minority, the majority are forced by law to pander to them.

Yup - society is just so much better and inclusive then it used to be.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

just an example of how far this can go....

www.cbc.ca...

This is the story. In 2005, some neighbours looked thru their windows into a man's house. He was sitting in front of the TV and they couldn't quite see what he was doing but by golly, it was suspicious! So they went to their bedroom and jumped up on their bed. From that angle, they could see that the pervert was masterbating while he watched tv.

So being reasonable sort of snow flakes, they called the police. When the police arrived, all they could see when they shone a flashlight in the window was the man's shoulders. But the couple insisted that charges be laid because they "felt" that he was masterbating to their young daughter's.

The man was convicted of "indecency" in a lower court and had to appeal the judgment to a higher court before conviction was overturned.

Can you imagine the money spent and the public embarrassment this man went thru, all because no one had the common sense to tell the snow flakes to get off their bed and stop spying on the neighbour!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
This whole topic is hilarious. Its just not enforceable.

I vape now, but I used to smoke heavily. I lived in public housing, and worked full time. Paid taxes and all.

When I used to tell guests that I smoked, they were blown away. They couldn't believe it, after I told them I smoked inside. Now, most of these people were nonsmokers. They couldn't smell it, unless I was actively smoking. Its pretty easy to get rid of the smell.

Either way, I keep seeing this "my tax dollars" nonsense. First off, you no longer own that money. Secondly, I am sure there are many taxpayers that would not agree with you (and many that likely would). Who's voice should be heard? Only yours? What ego.

Some of you people make me absolutely sick to my stomach.........



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420

I agree that its completely unenforcable. Its just more propaganda. But it is the nose of the camel, just a little further into the tent.

And most people can't even imagine that the same tool can be used against them!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I assume this will affect medical marijuana users? They have enough restrictions from HUD and other rules so far. If so that proposes a bigger issue because not all low income medical patients have the means of other places to smoke.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: AlphaIron

Oh, and thanks for calling me trash. Real nice.

I get that all people that live in these housing units aren't great.

But I had to, until I got on my feet.

Some of us just really needed a hand up, not a hand out.


I know right. Someone who worked in "a department that dealt with HUD" calling people who are in need that utilize it trash. Maybe that's why they no longer work there if you catch my drift(fired). Good for that if so.

In my journyes including unfortunate situations have met many with foul attitudes in command of helping people. Guess its accepted that the harsh in demeanor are better to push people off from seeking help. Less people, less work they have to do.

edit on 2-12-2016 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join