Public housing smoking ban in effect nationwide

Link

A nationwide smoking ban is now in effect for all public housing developments across the U.S. Beginning Tuesday, smoking in and around the more than 900,000 public housing units is now prohibited. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development officially banned smoking on Feb. 3, 2017 and provided an 18-month implementation period for all public housing authorities.

The rule prohibits the use of all cigarettes, cigars and pipes in all units, common areas, administrative offices and outdoor areas within 25 feet of the facility. HUD said its smoke-free rule would reduce damage and maintenance costs associated with smoking, saving the agency an estimated $153 million in repairs and preventable fires.

Approximately 2 million people live in public housing including more than 500,000 elderly residents and 760,000 children.

I have said it several times and I'll say it again. People who need assistance affording basic necessities in life shouldn't be allowed to purchase luxuries. Obviously, this is totally unenforceable and will just create a bigger black market for luxury items like tobacco.

In this case, it has nothing to do with punishing or going after these people and everything to do with the government protecting their properties.

I just think its ludicrous that we are subsidizing these peoples housing for probably hundreds of dollars a month so they can blow smoke.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Conversely, governments reap massive revenue from the high taxation on tobacco. I don't hear them complaining about that. I am addicted to nicotine and have been for 32 years.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I take massive issue with the 25 feet rule.

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?

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I have said it several times and I'll say it again. People who need assistance affording basic necessities in life shouldn't be allowed to purchase luxuries.

Why take away rights of people that you are trying to help?

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Doesn't that mean anything to people anymore?

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.

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?

In this case the “intrusive government” is being solicited by these people for free or subsidized housing. If one doesn’t want the government “intruding” then don’t ask for their help in the first place.

Sure sounds like #FREEDOM to me!

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
[ HUD said its smoke-free rule would reduce damage and maintenance costs associated with smoking, saving the agency an estimated $153 million in repairs and preventable fires.

What's that? Like ten minutes of Pentagon spending?

If they want to smoke, they can go pay market rent for an apartment that allows smoking. Or HUD could charge extra for the additional cost of maintenance due to housing a smoker.

If you don't like the rules, move.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I am addicted to nicotine and have been for 32 years.

That's not good at all. Forget about government conspiracies. You are conspiring against yourself.

It's like living in your parents house. You can live there for free or limited rent payments but have to obey a bunch of dumb rules or you get evicted.

If no one likes it, they are free to move out and find a place of their own to live in without someone like the government trying to run every facet of their lives.. Just thought I would throw some common sense in there.

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 can just picture a rash of police shootings against smoking, 'perpetrators'.

a reply to: smurfy


A local man was shot to death my metro police for resisting arrest from a smoking violation citation. Oh boy.

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.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I have said it several times and I'll say it again. People who need assistance affording basic necessities in life shouldn't be allowed to purchase luxuries.

Why take away rights of people that you are trying to help?

Because they are needing help just to keep a roof over their heads and we are literally letting them take their money up in smoke.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Doesn't that mean anything to people anymore?

I am all for life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness but you gotta pay for it yourself. Nobody owes you a happy living.

I don't smoke tobacco, and don't want to smell it coming from my neighbors- but, I wonder:

Does this ban apply to tenants receiving Section-8 vouchers? Often times their dwellings are in the same building as renters who are not receiving federal rent assistance.

Would it be fair to those tenants receiving assistance to have rules/restrictions applied to them that their next door neighbor in the same building does not have to abide by?

This is already an issue in Seattle with regards to medical cannabis- tenants receiving Section-8 vouchers are "forbidden" from using/possessing "illegal" drugs (including medical cannabis) in their units, however, their neighbor in the same building who does not receive assistance can use recreational and/or medical cannabis without fear of eviction/loss of benefits.

Not everyone who receives free rent assistance or lives in subsidized housing is there because they are lazy- many have legitimate physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, and may not have family or other resources to help them with housing. What other "luxuries" should we forbid them from having? Maybe they shouldn't have internet or TV? Perhaps we should restrict their diets and give them only what is healthy?

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.

Exactly! If I rent an apartment or house I have to abide by the homeowner's rules. Don't like it? Buy your own property.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Conversely, governments reap massive revenue from the high taxation on tobacco. I don't hear them complaining about that. I am addicted to nicotine and have been for 32 years.

There has been a warning label on every pack of smokes since 1966.
Long before you started smoking.