U.S. to ban smoking in Public Housing

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Along the way, we are actually encouraging mental illness.

I never looked at it this way, I think you're onto something.

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem is the smoke doesn't just stay in the smoker's apartment. If someone wants to be an idiot and smoke cancer sticks, I could careless. However, they don't have the right to stink up their neighbors apartments or pollute their neighbors air. Having lived in an apartment building with smokers, you can absolutely still smell their smoke outside their apartment and in some cases, in your own place.

Also, I'm sure this helps the insurance rates since smokers can burn down their unit.

We often see people talk like this, and right after start their cars while their kids are standing right beside it.

originally posted by: ezramullins
I find it hard to accept that this decision was made with purely benevolent intentions.
HUD cannot even effectively enforce the existing regulations.
It seems like more erosion of personal liberties and possibly another attempt at bypassing
the fourth amendment.

It sure does look like that then anything else.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

it was suspicious! So they went to their bedroom and jumped up on their bed.

WTF...the money lost on legal fee's! Which "sane cop" or Prosecutor acted on this complaint?

a reply to: dawnstar

I still say that the are using cigarettes as a scapegoat, to cover the fact that our modern lifestyle is killing us...

And this is why they will never ban cigarettes. They need an excuse 30 years down the track if you try to claim your work environment or car's gave you lung cancer. They will fall back on the "2nd hand cigarette smoke" defence.

a reply to: loam

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

hahaha the hypocrisy

a reply to: grainofsand

and living in homes my taxes pay for would be better spending their (taxpayers)

Your taxes go into a pool that you have no control over - like invading and killing millions for oil. Do you get to say where your military invades next? Thought not...but let's pick an easy target "subsidized public housing"

a reply to: grainofsand

See it doesn't stop there, In Western Australia outdoor parks are regulated now

en.wikipedia.org...

Smoking is banned within 10 meters of any children’s playground equipment.

Never mind the fact that they breathed carbon monoxide riding in mom's suv to get to the park

a reply to: CantStandIt

I have seen plenty of studies that contradict the conclusion that 2nd hand smoke is detrimental to health

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Of course non-smokers are being subsidized by smokers and also by people who travel further for work by car than those who use public transport. Over 80% of the cost of a litre of fuel goes to Fed and State taxes in Australia

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
Yeah cool, it's what the thread is about.
Is that cool with you?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Assuming the person breathing it is otherwise healthy, that is probably correct.

How would you propose to make insuring the building and its contents cheaper without limiting smoking indoors?

a reply to: CantStandIt

why is it more costly?? because people are getting drunk and falling asleep with their lit cigarettes and pipes??
if that is the case, well the problem isn't really with the cigarettes is it?? it's with the people that are so drunk that they don't know enough to stay awake with a lit cigarette!!! ban the danged alchohol also, and maybe I won't gripe as much...but this is just mass hysteria leading to poor gov't policy.

a reply to: dawnstar

Yes, the potential for fire is greater in a dwelling where smokers live.

Then there's the water damage to repair once the FD shows up to put out the apartment

And the fact that neither the fire nor the wster limit themselves to just the smoker"s apartment.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I've seen this happen in one of the places I worked at. during the day, while we worked, regardless of how cold it was outside, we'd have the bay doors open to keep the place aired out. sadly, this allowed an occasional stray bird to fly in. after we went home, the bay doors would be closed, leaving the poor bird trapped in the shop. and well, we would come in in the morning to find the poor thing laying dead somewhere. the boss would even admit that it was the chemicals in the air that killed the birds.
but, when some of the workers started complaining about feeling ill, and coming in with doctor's notes, well, it wasn't that toxic air that was the problem, of course it was the second hand smoke..
many of those chemicals would come to us in these big steel drums.. and one day I got a peak at the back of the shop, before that I thought that they was a proper way of disposing of these things, but, come to find out, their proper way was just leaving them in back of the shop, and there were way too many of them for me to believe that it was just a temporary, just till they got picked up deal... the bad thing was, their was a childcare center right next door. so much for osha or the epa and all their restrictions hindering businesses... those regulations only work if they are enforced.

a reply to: CantStandIt
or where drunks live....
or those who like to make meth in their kitchen...
or firebug kids.....
or idiots who like to deepfry their frozen turkeys.
or heck, all these people are poor, probably making due with a bunch of outdated appliances just waiting to short out.

but, to be honest, I think that quite a few of those fires started by smokers also probably had alchohol involved...
but who's to say that if the drunk couldn't smoke the cigarette, he wouldn't go into the kitchen to make him a snack and fall asleep with the stove on and burn the place down that way. but, the next time I talk to my insurance agent, I'll try to remember to ask her if my renter's insurance if higher because I smoke.... my bet is she looks at me like I am nuts and says no...

a reply to: dawnstar

Your renter's insurance covers only replacement of your personal property in your unit in case of whatever disaster might happen.


The landlord's policy is the one that would cover damages to the flooring, walls, roof, etc in case of whatever disaster might happen. If your landlord's lease agreements don't prohibit smoking, then, if you happen to be in the same State as me, yes, their insurance on the building is more expensive.

I can't speak for other states definitively, but it would surprise me if New York is different in that regard.

a reply to: dawnstar

Lol, I'm pretty sure cooking meth or arson would be prohibited under the clause in the lease that says 'you agree not to perform illegal activities in your apt'. But, truly, if the tenant doesn't concern themselves with committing felonies, I doubt any line in the lease would matter at all.

a reply to: underwerks

More oversight of peoples lives by the state using any pretext they can to get the strange American people to accept at little effort.

a reply to: Azureblue

I agree!

The US government finds it necessary to intrude into the private homes of its citizen to ban smoking for fear of risk to health and safety to neighbours.

The same US government finds it necessary to pass laws forcing the use of mercury filled light bulbs that spew mercury in a home if broken.

There is a disconnect here that has nothing to do with health and safety.

Tired of Control Freaks