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.

 

U.S. to ban smoking in Public Housing

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: CantStandIt

Ah the member whines about any controls on smoking all the time, don't worry.
He seems to think that people who choose to sign a tenancy agreement have some right to smoke in the property which is overwhelmingly subsidised by the taxpayer.

Tired of whining control freaks lol




posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Stigmatizing smoking, smokers is socially acceptable in this day and age. And I think it's dumb.

There are more important things to worry about, in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Since the White House is essentially public housing, isn't it a shame the rule couldn't have been applied to Obama:

Obama smoking? President caught on camera holding 'pack of cigarettes'




President Obama, who claimed when he first entered the White House to have mostly kicked his nicotine habit, might have been caught on camera holding a pack of cigarettes.

The commander in chief is seen clutching a white object in a snapshot with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi posted Sunday on Instagram by Renzi's spokesman.


edit on 4-12-2016 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I apologize in advance for not reading all of the replies but, could it not be an insurance type of consideration as well?

I realize the OP was speaking specifically about second hand smoke.

What if in the future, I believe it is wise to try and consider all possibilities, the housing authorities are sued for effects on someone from, what may or may not be able to be proven, second hand smoke AND what if allowing smoking causes an increase in insurance rates which may in turn hurt funding to such projects and that in turn will cause less folks to be able to use the programs?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Now let's get the 'control freaks' out into the open and away from their drug induced delusions of Communist control
of 'We the People' who they are trying to enslave - let's use facts:

"The Second-Hand Smoke Charade"

".....One of the important arguments for restricting smoking is that it can endanger innocent nonsmokers who inhale environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Indeed, many states (led by California and Florida) have decided over the last few years to severely restrict smoking in commercial establishments on the basis of a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that classified ETS as a “Group A Carcinogen,” that is, as a significant risk to health.

It now turns out that the influential 1993 EPA report “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders” was as phony as a three-dollar bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that ETS was a public health danger (and not just a nuisance) were completely misled by the EPA. And, of course, so was main street American public opinion".


"You don’t have to be a fan of smoking to agree that the EPA is a regulatory renegade spinning wildly out of control on this issue. Even several veteran career employees of the agency have gone public recently to protest its “junk science” and its irrational environmental zealotry".

"Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had “cherry picked” its data and had grossly manipulated “scientific procedure and scientific norms” in order to rationalize the agency’s own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency’s authority for disseminating its “de facto regulatory scheme” that intended to prohibit passive smoking. The agency responded, embarrassingly, with an ad hominem attack on the judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments.

As a result of the EPA report, many bans on smoking in public places have been introduced. One would think that any such ban would be based solidly on scientific studies of ETS exposure in public places. In fact, the EPA did not even evaluate the studies on smoking in public places. Instead, the EPA’s analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS".


"Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the “confidence levels” in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally “confessed” that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions.

And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the “cherry-picked” 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA’s own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a “Group A Carcinogen,” as the agency had boldly asserted".


"You don’t have to be a fan of smoking to agree that the EPA is a regulatory renegade spinning wildly out of control on this issue. Even several veteran career employees of the agency have gone public recently to protest its “junk science” and its irrational environmental zealotry. Congress should pull the plug on any EPA regulation that cannot be justified by evidence that is demonstrable, compelling, unequivocal and significant. None yet exists with respect to passive smoking".

See whole article here:
www.cato.org...

Now do you see why even people who live in public housing, or collect whatever from the government still ended up voting for Donald Trump ?- The people are tired of the 'control freaks' giving them handouts only to use the handouts to conrotl them
- Most government hand outs are very, very expensive for all of us



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm a smoker and I don't feel oppressed.
Smoke impacts on other people, that is a fact.
If the state wishes to include a restriction on smoking in subsidised rented homes then nobody is forced to sign the tenancy agreement.
Piss poor people on welfare and living in homes my taxes pay for would be better spending their (taxpayers) money on better life choices.
No sympathy, live somewhere else if you wanna smoke in your home.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

While I don't disagree with anything you said, I see this as focusing on the wrong thing.

We should be more concerned with getting people out of subsidized housing instead of worrying what they are doing IN subsidized housing.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Smoking and tobacco are legal products and a legal activity. It is in fact, one of the sources of funding for public housing. On what grounds does the government intrude on housing.

If the government may intrude intrude in order to reduce maintenance costs, then the government may also make regulations to stop tenants with children from renting (children do have that reputation of causing damage, don't they).

Government can make regulations and the public has the power to force roll-backs of unreasonable regulation.

Do now holding party in your home is illegal?????

As for regulation, it is encumbent on the government to make regulation as non-intrusive as possible.

As for maintenance costs - gosh since when did maintenance costs for smokers get so high? In recent history, smokers comprised 50 % of the population and smoking was not listed as being a high maintenance activity. Oh yeah - this is until anti-smokers started publishing studies, jacking up the cost like oh replacing dry wall and carpets instead of just paint and clean the carpet (which is required by regulation).


as for smokers can rent....I posted a link earlier in this thread of a 90 year old veteran with alziemers who was evicted, not because he smoked inside. No....He smoked in the outside breezeway because his health wouldn't allow him to walk far enough away to satisfy the anti-smokers

As for you own your house....yeah what will you do when its is regulations that houses of smokers must be discounted by $25,000 for maintenance costs? Or they threaten to take away your children based on "health concerns".

Yes - the government is now in your home.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Nope, nobody is forced to sign the tenancy agreement.
If the state wishes to impose restrictions on whatever regarding people choosing to take the tenancy then tough #, don't sign the tenancy agreement and find somewhere else.
Your whining is frankly amusing, it is a choice to smoke, and it is a choice to sign the tenancy agreement.

Oh and your ridiculous ideas regarding restrictions on home owners are well, ridiculous.

Tired of Whining Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: grainofsand
We should be more concerned with getting people out of subsidized housing instead of worrying what they are doing IN subsidized housing.

Agreed, but the trouble is when people get their subsidised homes there is no incentive to move to full self sufficiency so they stay there for life.
That's how it rolls in the UK at least.
Public housing winds me the # up here, cheap rent and they even get their lawns cut on the taxpayer coin.

*Edit*
I used to work for the state and believe it or not but some entitled bastards even phone to complain if their lawn hasn't been mowed.

edit on 4.12.2016 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I agree with you.

That doesn't negate the higher costs of providing housing when some of the tenants are smokers and smoke indoors. The smoke gets everywhere. Ever rented a hotel room where the previous occupant smoked the place up?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: CantStandIt

however did hotels stay in business prior to smoking bans.

Look smoke is a lighter than air gas. It rises in one direction only. What if you rented hotel rooms and housing in the upper floors to smokers only?

Would that not be a less intrusive legislation that allows for legal choices for all?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I don't see anywhere in the article that says the tenants can't smoke. They can chain smoke to their hearts' content... just not inside the building.

There are undoubtedly tenants who have legitimate health reasons to avoîd exposure to cigarette smoke. Not just a personal preference against it.

Are you suggesting they rent elsewhere?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

AH - the old "I don't need to speak for others in public housing" . "They will never come for me". I am a polite smoker and I smoke only outside or in my own home delusion.

Of course they are coming for you dummy!

Tired of Control freaks



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

disable old people will not be leaving subsidized housing any time soon. Isn't that one of the reasons that we subsidize housing?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Smoke does tend to rise... in a vacuum... until it hits the ceiling and starts to recirculate.

Outside a vacuum, it follows the air currents. (Otherwise, the odor molecules would never make it outside the smoker's apt... but they do, invariably).

So, no, that would not be a good solution, in my opinion. It wouldn't be any less expensive in terms of maintenance and insurance.

I appreciate and agree with your desire to keep government as far out of peoples lives as possible.

I guess you could say I have a bad case of Responsibility Fatigue. If I am responsible for putting a roof over your head, then at least have the decency to do your part to keep it livable for the next person so I don't have to gut the place to re-rent it.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: grainofsand

AH - the old "I don't need to speak for others in public housing" . "They will never come for me". I am a polite smoker and I smoke only outside or in my own home delusion.

Of course they are coming for you dummy!

Tired of Control freaks


Bahahaha! Paranoid much?!
What world are you living in? What despotic overlords are suggesting you can't smoke in the home you own?
I couldn't give a # about public housing, I resent my taxes paying for the subsidised homes for anyone except the disabled or pensioners.

If people choose to sign a tenancy agreement and it stipulates that smoking inside the publicly owned building is not permitted then don't sign the agreement.
Nobody is forced to accept the tenancy, it is a choice.
The state, like any other landlord is entitled to restrict or control whatever it likes in properties people choose to rent off it.

Tired of Whining Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Yes, I totally agree that the EPA is full of career politicians who can't avoid lying and cheating to get their share of power over people.

That doesn't negate the fact that some people have legitimate health reasons to avoid second-hand smoke.

And it doesn't negate the fact that insuring a property where smoking indoors is allowed is more expensive.

I don't get how you can support the government's right to take more money out of your paycheck to account for greater insurance risk, yet you rail against the government imposing a regulation that would reduce the need for that.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: grainofsand
We should be more concerned with getting people out of subsidized housing instead of worrying what they are doing IN subsidized housing.

Agreed, but the trouble is when people get their subsidised homes there is no incentive to move to full self sufficiency so they stay there for life.
That's how it rolls in the UK at least.
Public housing winds me the # up here, cheap rent and they even get their lawns cut on the taxpayer coin.

*Edit*
I used to work for the state and believe it or not but some entitled bastards even phone to complain if their lawn hasn't been mowed.


I'm in a council house and nobody comes and cuts my lawn, are you sure about that one mate?

As to the smoking if they banned it in my house then I could see that it makes sense but I'm still not going to stand outside in the rain when I have a perfectly good utility room to stand in.

I pay my own way though so do not worry your tax money is not paying my 98 quid a week rent for a 4 bed semi...



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: grainofsand
We should be more concerned with getting people out of subsidized housing instead of worrying what they are doing IN subsidized housing.

Agreed, but the trouble is when people get their subsidised homes there is no incentive to move to full self sufficiency so they stay there for life.
That's how it rolls in the UK at least.
Public housing winds me the # up here, cheap rent and they even get their lawns cut on the taxpayer coin.

*Edit*
I used to work for the state and believe it or not but some entitled bastards even phone to complain if their lawn hasn't been mowed.


I'm in a council house and nobody comes and cuts my lawn, are you sure about that one mate?

As to the smoking if they banned it in my house then I could see that it makes sense but I'm still not going to stand outside in the rain when I have a perfectly good utility room to stand in.

I pay my own way though so do not worry your tax money is not paying my 98 quid a week rent for a 4 bed semi...

Yep, the housing association in my area cuts peoples lawns.
And no, you don't 'pay your own way' at all, your home is subsidised by the local taxpayer. You will not find a 4 bed semi for 98 quid in your area and you know it.

Why should the taxpayer subsidise your cheap rented home when you have no disabilities?
What, so you were 'lucky' enough to turn up at the housing office with a couple of kids crying 'vulnerable' when say a single male such as myself is told to # off.
Yeah, nice, I prefer to pay my way as I always have. You do not pay your way.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join