Smoking ban in public housing units...

Just heard on the local news, San Antonio housing authority is banning smoking inside the home. They will not be allowed to smoke ANYWHERE on the property begginning in january, EXCEPT designated smoking areas.

www.mysanantonio.com...

I think this is so wrong. Housing pays a portion of the rent, and yes if they pay, you follow their rules. But the government is inching their way into our homes

Beware, next may be every home in the usa...

Originally posted by showintail
Just heard on the local news, San Antonio housing authority is banning smoking inside the home. They will not be allowed to smoke ANYWHERE on the property begginning in january, EXCEPT designated smoking areas.

www.mysanantonio.com...

I think this is so wrong. Housing pays a portion of the rent, and yes if they pay, you follow their rules. But the government is inching their way into our homes

Beware, next may be every home in the usa...

Your title says it all I'm afraid. Public housing means they have the right not only to regulate what goes on inside, but outside on the premises too. I am an ex smoker so I know how the smokers will feel about this, but it is their right to regulate what is allowed on the premises of the property that they own.

I think this is ok to designate certian apartment smoking and non smoking. Have you ever rented an apartment that was rented by a smoker? It is very gross, it lingers. I don't think they should tell people not to smoke in their own apartments but why not have smoking and non smoking apartments.
I agree with this for lobbies and public areas in an apartment. I feel that just because the government is subsizing your rent does not mean they should tell you what to do at the same time we should protect others rights to live in a smoke free environment.

I don't think this is a bad idea at all. Public housing is owned by the govt, and as such, they can regulate what can/cannot happen in those properties.

As a smoker, I don't smoke in my own house, nor do I expect to smoke in anyone elses. Cigarette smoke makes the air stale, stains the walls and leaves a fine layer of ash over everything, even when ashing into an ash tray.

It's much nicer to smoke outside, especially on cold clear nights. There's no harm in stepping outside for the 4 minutes it takes to finish a cigarette, so why not do it.

This would be a different story if the smoking ban was applied to housing that was not owned by the govt, but in this case, there's nothing wrong with the ban.

reply to post by showintail


It's not so much the policy that is concerning... (it is public housing, rules are theirs to make...)

It is how they expect to enforce it...

The "No Smoking" rule has been in effect in my apartment buildings, two of them...
for the last 2 1/2 years. No smoking in the apartments, or on the property. You have to
go out on the sidewalk or take a walk around the block.

Does anybody follow the mandate...ummm...no...
I quit smoking a while back..I understand everybody has a right to do what they wish...
unfortunately...this is one of those rules that requires intelligence enough to think about
someone else than yourself...something that is lacking in the "ME" world of today...

BTW...my building is not state or government owned...the lease also states that you could be
evicted if you are smoking on the property...what can ya say???

Very good points, and it does make for a better enviroment in the home. Thankfully im no longer on any rental assistance. (whoohoo!) Amd was glad for my children that it was there when we needed it. Sadley, id be smoking out the bathroom lije a little kid, lol.

I do like the idea of smoking and non. But to go along with why this is being implemented, smoking apts should only be 1 bedrooms that house elderly and disabled with no minors. But I guess the all out ban is easier.

Thanks for the replies

Originally posted by SnedsDawg
I don't think this is a bad idea at all. Public housing is owned by the govt, and as such, they can regulate what can/cannot happen in those properties.

As a smoker, I don't smoke in my own house, nor do I expect to smoke in anyone elses. Cigarette smoke makes the air stale, stains the walls and leaves a fine layer of ash over everything, even when ashing into an ash tray.

It's much nicer to smoke outside, especially on cold clear nights. There's no harm in stepping outside for the 4 minutes it takes to finish a cigarette, so why not do it.

This would be a different story if the smoking ban was applied to housing that was not owned by the govt, but in this case, there's nothing wrong with the ban.

This all sounds reasonable to you NOW. But, it is a very "slippery slope." And, our personal liberty lies dead and lifeless at the bottom of that hill.

Next step is your home.

Once Obamacare kicks in its not unreasonable to project that the government will feel it has a vested interest in your physical body and "keeping you healthy" as you are a participant in their healthcare "plan"..

Don't eat ice cream.
Don't have a salty snack.
2 Oreos are enough.
blah, blah, blah

Say goodbye to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

reply to post by robyn

Don't eat ice cream.
Don't have a salty snack.
2 Oreos are enough.
blah, blah, blah

Say goodbye to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If Ice Cream, Oreos and Salty snacks are the only thing that makes American's happy, then you got bigger problems than worrying about the government impeaching your rights....

reply to post by boncho




My point really was, "Where does it all end?" On this path - not well.

Next step will be particle sniffers inside the houses to detected whatever they want to look for...

Something along the line of at the airport and they swab down your bags

What about the fact that they are prohibiting a legal activity...What's next? Beer?
And besides subsidizing the rent...Doesn't the government subsidize tobacco?

reply to post by showintail


Meh.. I don't really care about welfare recipients complaining about Government intrusion. As far as I'm concerned, when you suck from the Governments teets, they own you. If they want to dictate what you eat, what you drink, what, when and where you smoke, what your kids eat, is your house clean enough, random drug tests, etc etc etc. When you live off the government your saying you can't operate without it's guidance and control.

As a former smoker, I know from experience, smoking physically damages your property. If the state owns the property, they have the right to tell you not to engage in an act which lowers the value of their property, as owner. Also don't have a problem with smoking/non smoking apartments and condo's. It makes sense, and is fair for the most part.

As an ex smoker I never smoked in my own home.. always outside smokers are a tough breed who brave all weathers

However as a liberal I deeply dislike this type of intrusion and these types of attempts to regulate (for whatever reason) the way we live.. so thumbs down from me..

But I do recognise this is the direction we (as a species) are heading, ever more regulation and ever more control on how we live our lives.. and as a liberal, I dread to think of the regulated lives we will be living 10 or 20 years from now..

Try and catch me flocker.

What? My neighbor reported me? I was just cooking some snapper....