Public housing smoking ban in effect nationwide

At $10 a pack how can you afford them if your in public housing?

a reply to: PraetorianAZ


For gods sake!

Let people smoke!

This is stupid.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: starviego
They are already talking about banning smoking from apartment buildings that are privately-owned. You can't smoke with kids in your own car. What's next?

This is dog training--plain and simple. You are an idiot if you think the G actually cares about your health.

I've also had been forced to sleep in a smokers room of a hotel. The room had awful reeky stale smell to it, but it was the only one available.

Someone forced you to sleep in a hotel room? Nonsense. It was your own free choice.

Not if there are no other rooms available and you can't easily pack up and find a different hotel. I've had this happen to me back in the day when hotels still had smoking rooms and I traveled for business a lot.

Both my parents smoked, but I developed a severe sensitivity to it. Someone walking in front of me on a sidewalk smoking with a 10mph wind still causes my nose to start running.

You sound like a sensitive soul. Walk away. If you don't like my smoking you can pluck the cigarette out of my hand, if you are really lucky. I don't think you will be lucky though. I pay taxes on that cigarette. Suck it up.

originally posted by: Disenchanted1

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Boo fricken who.
Dont like the house rules?
Buy your own house.

All to often I see food stamps and WIC coupons being used at walmart and a separate transaction follows with beer and smoked being purchased.

Umm! Walmart does not sell Tobbacco FYI!

Walmart absolutely DOES sell tobacco--they sell cigarettes, chewing tobacco, cigarillos, and even packets of roll-your-own tobacco. They also sell e-cigarettes. I have bought tobacco products at my local Walmart plenty of times.

originally posted by: starviego
They are already talking about banning smoking from apartment buildings that are privately-owned. You can't smoke with kids in your own car. What's next?

This is dog training--plain and simple. You are an idiot if you think the G actually cares about your health.

I'd be curious to see where they are banning it on private property. Do you mean private landowners are banning it in their apartment buildings? I absolutely agree with making it illegal to smoke with your kid(s) in the car. Until they are adults, I have zero problem with our laws working to protect them without their consent... they need a voice that will protect them.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I have known lots of people who live in public housing i.e. the projects and would not infringe on their rights to smoke or drink because the accomidations are so crappy.

a reply to: LordAhriman

Exactly and that's a bloody shame the biggest part of the budget goes to military spending so wht the f word has for the last 30 years enlisted men with families had to rely on food stamps and public housing with their families living at bottom of the poverty levels while defense contractors like Lockheed keep getting paid bank for shoddy systems or constantly missing production deadlines?

I've never signed a lease that didn't say "no smoking of any kind allowed on the property". I used to smoke cigarettes and only had one landlord complain to me about it. But it's very common to have a no smoking rule in a lease, due to the way it stains the walls. I totally agree with an enforced no smoking rule in public housing because why would you want your tenant paying subsidized rent and spending $4-$5,000 a year on cigarettes? It makes no sense. Also grouping marijuana and other smokeable drugs makes sense in the same vein and more. I used to spend between $250 - $500 a month on herb, plus the cigarettes. That is insane and it makes me sick to think about the amount of money I have smoked in my life. For some people they are spending more money on what they smoke a month than their rent, which makes no sense if they are getting affordable housing offered to them. Also, if no smoking is enforced then drug deals, crime, addiction should by a margin go down. If landlords truly stick to the 3 strikes and your out rule then people will be forced to quit, go off premises or move. Sometimes government influence is a good thing, nobody should want to be a smoker, the addiction will justify why you have a right to it in ever scenario but trust me once you break that addiction, you will see what a waste it is. A waste of your money, your health, and the health of those around you, especially children. A lot of people don't know how to parent, I grew up hanging out in affordable housing with friends and often would see things like a mother breast feeding with a cigarette handing out of her mouth, or just simply smoking around children who have no choice but to breathe toxic air due to the smoke. They usually grow up to be smokers themselves. It's a chain of addiction that needs to be broken and this is a huge step in the right direction.

a reply to: BiffJordan

As an ex smoker for 40 years, I do agree with a lot of what you say. The real question after that though, is then what?

Throw them and in some cases their children out into the street, people who likely can't qualify to rent or lease on their own? What's the cost of that since this is about dollars?

That's why I pointed out that currently between federal, state and local taxes smokers not only pay back society for their added costs, they likely overpay.

I'm one of the lucky few who got away with 40 years of smoking non-filter cigarettes with no sign of lung problems. I hate cigarettes and hate the companies who hooked both my father and I too their products knowingly, but at some point reality enters the picture. The taxes already more than cover the costs of it all, so for them to say they are doing this for financial reasons is a lie, they know for a fact they can get away with. They orchestrated it that way.

Keep the non-smokers and smokers at odds with each other and nobody will ever notice how a legal activity is overtaxed and the money used not to help the smokers, but to replace taxes they would otherwise level on everyone somehow. They now admit it is an addiction harder to shake than a heroine addiction and yet it is legal so they can keep collecting the taxes. They sue the tobacco companies during the day, wine and dine each other at night and both big tobacco and the government profit greatly from it all, at the victims expense. Then the politicians say look at me, look what I did, ain't I cool.

Those evil smokers, the spawn of Satan, hooked on a killer product the government covered up for for generations knowingly. Now it's throw them out in the street, they deserve it! Sad, ain't it?

originally posted by: starviego
This is just about providing another excuse for an intrusive government to push themselves into people's private lives.

Also to provide another reason to push these people out of public housing. To be replaced by immigrants?

What you say may be true, but when your relying on the government for housing and food and spending money, you should be subject to their ridiculous bureaucracy. You can't have it both ways, if you want the government to leave you alone, pay your own way.

It's kind of like living with your parents when your 30. If they are supporting you, it's their rules.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: BiffJordan

As an ex smoker for 40 years, I do agree with a lot of what you say. The real question after that though, is then what?

Throw them and in some cases their children out into the street, people who likely can't qualify to rent or lease on their own? What's the cost of that since this is about dollars?

That's why I pointed out that currently between federal, state and local taxes smokers not only pay back society for their added costs, they likely overpay.

I'm one of the lucky few who got away with 40 years of smoking non-filter cigarettes with no sign of lung problems. I hate cigarettes and hate the companies who hooked both my father and I too their products knowingly, but at some point reality enters the picture. The taxes already more than cover the costs of it all, so for them to say they are doing this for financial reasons is a lie, they know for a fact they can get away with. They orchestrated it that way.

Keep the non-smokers and smokers at odds with each other and nobody will ever notice how a legal activity is overtaxed and the money used not to help the smokers, but to replace taxes they would otherwise level on everyone somehow. They now admit it is an addiction harder to shake than a heroine addiction and yet it is legal so they can keep collecting the taxes. They sue the tobacco companies during the day, wine and dine each other at night and both big tobacco and the government profit greatly from it all, at the victims expense. Then the politicians say look at me, look what I did, ain't I cool.

Those evil smokers, the spawn of Satan, hooked on a killer product the government covered up for for generations knowingly. Now it's throw them out in the street, they deserve it! Sad, ain't it?

It became common knowledge that smoking has a high correlation with cancer and cardiovascular issues in the 60's. You present smokers like they are some sort of unknowing, persecuted victims.. Most smokers still haven't figured out that leaving their disgusting cigarette butts all over is polluting the environment and very disrespectful and just butt ugly ( not pun Intended).

My husband and I are contentious smokers living in low income apartments.

Recently, the ownership of the property transfered and now there is a clause stipulation on the lease that says tenants cannot smoke in their apartments. Luckily, my husband and I were grandfathered in.

The majority of smokers I've seen have no problems going outside to smoke, they're fine with the policy and it is not uncommon for social niceties to be shared while outside for the smoke break.

Also, since the new management took over, there has been a better class of tenants and it's rare to see a cigarette butt littered on the ground.

There is also a policy that forbids drug use, mainly because the previous tenants who smoked marijuana were blazing up such incredible amounts to get high that it was seeping into others apartments and creating a horrible stench. Not to mention the unsavory "party types" and drug culture that made living here a nightmare for several years.

At least in my case, we are seeing a positive benefit from rules and regulations regarding smoking.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

My mom lives with us, and we moved to Central Texas. The first rule we put in place was no smoking in the house. Mom doesn't complain, but i feel bad letting my wife take her smokes away.

I still prefer to not have my house stinking like an ashtray.

Land of the free my ar**

I find it funny just how many folks are clamouring for government intrusion in other people's private lives.

You will all be back bleating on here when they ban cooking your own food because the smell upsets people and causes "millions of dollars" to clean up around cookers each year or some rot.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I understand completely.

I'm well aware of the smell and have a lowered sense because of constant association with cigarettes.

They're my only vice....and I'm doing better at not just grabbing one to light up because of a biological addiction.

Most of it is psychological in my case, like a form of toxic controlled breathing.

Like I said, it's a vice.

But as diehard of a smoker as I am, I'm actually a proponent of the new push toward dissuading others from lighting up or getting addicted.

Health concerns are indisputable.

I'm fairly resilient but I also understand that many are not, and public health is a concern.

I wish I could give them up, but I have a ways to go before I can wuit.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

No judgement at all from me.

I started vaping, and my taste and smell returned. But its still a vice. it just doesn't make the house smell, and gives health benefits over smoking. I didn't really want to quit smoking, to be honest. And have no intention to stop vaping.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am torn on the issue. I don’t like the restriction of freedom, but since you are essentially a “guest” of the state in these housing developments it seems fair that you should have to abide by their rules.

I have no problem with any reasonable restrictions on tenancy agreements for taxpayer funded rental properties, same as private landlords set their own rules.
The choice remains for the tenant to agree the terms of the rent or choose to rent elsewhere, same as it is for most people who don't own their own homes.
Nobody's rights are infringed so I find no reason to object. Not that I have a dog in the fight, just how I'd feel if social housing providers in the UK did the same.
Don't like it? Take personal responsibilty and find somewhere else where the landlord allows you to smoke.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We both tried vaping but it was too expensive and time consuming for us to continue.

Plus taste factors, our coils burnt out too quickly.

I'm glad the trend of vaping has so many but it didn't work for us.

Props on being able to make the transition.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Ever want to make another go at it, let me know. Some guidance up front will certainly save you money and improve the chance of success. I got my wife to quit for less than $30 (she couldn't use my equipment...i have too much airflow) using the new pods with nic salts.

I was lucky to have an ATS member that gave me the same support, and it really made all the difference for me.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

It's just more control over people.

People are losing their rights all the time and they don't even realize it.