HUD Smoke-Free Proposal - Vanishing Liberty for Low-Income Americans

[TomFoolery]

I'm going to have to stand with Solomon here. While I'm not section 8, many in my complex are and I have my own rights to consider here. If this comes about, i will no doubt be subjected  to the same rule even though I am not being subsidized.

Is it a "right" to be able to smoke in your privately-owned home? Well, smoking is legal, so sure. Is it a "right" to be able to smoke in a rented home? If your landlord says you can.

Take smoking out of it and interchange any other policy. Many landlords (some public housing units included) don't allow pets. That doesn't mean you have lost your legal right to own a pet, it just means if you have one and want to keep it, you have to live somewhere else. Some places don't allow more than one or two pets, some have weight restrictions, some don't allow certain breeds or species. I wouldn't call it a war on Great Dane breeders: I'd call it something like landlords have the right to set some basic ground rules for how you treat their property.

Fire safety codes dictate that you can't have an open flame on patios, and some places enforce it so heavily they don't allow you to even keep a grill on the patio. At my last apartment, I put my grill in storage and used a George Foreman: I didn't carry on about a "Constitutional right" to a flame seared steak or a "war on renters."

At the apartment pool they didn't allow glass bottles, so I had to drink beer out of aluminum cans. I didn't refer to that as a "war on people who prefer their alcohol untarnished by a metallic taste."

Bottom line is, when it's someone else's property, they have the right to dictate what you can and can't do to their property, and you have the right to seek other accommodations.

I do understand the practical side of this. If a landlord attempts to discourage smoking indoors by requiring a security deposit and spelling out in the lease that you will forfeit that deposit if there is evidence of smoking, so be it. I get that's the way it's always been where you live, but things change. Fact is, in virtually every state, if smoking restrictions are included in the lease, the government will back up the landlord’s rights to create a smoke-free environment. You are of course free to violate that, and they are of course free to terminate your lease.

[FaithIsFilth]

When I think of "war on the poor," I think about things like denying poor people adequate healthcare or nutritious food. I think of kids in poor neighborhoods getting shitty educations. I think of food deserts and malnutrition and shutting down Planned Parenthood. I think of the shitty sign I saw just this morning at the grocery store that says WIC no longer covers 2% milk for whatever asinine fucking reason. I don't think of smoking. Of all the injustices suffered by the poor in America, if smoking in a government subsidized apartment is the hill you want to stand on and beat your chest, then I don't even really know what to say.

It would be a war on the poor to say that you can't buy cigarettes at all if you're receiving government assistance. It's not a war on the poor to say you can't smoke in an apartment that the government owns and helps you pay for.

I'm sorry, but you sound like Melissa Harris Perry here. "You call that hard work? What about slavery?" I don't smoke, but making poor people have to go out in the cold and snow to smoke their cigarettes and even banning them from smoking on their own balconies is insane.

[TomFoolery]

I'm sorry, but you sound like Melissa Harris Perry here. "You call that hard work? What about slavery?" I don't smoke, but making poor people have to go out in the cold and snow to smoke their cigarettes and even banning them from smoking on their own balconies is insane.

1. I'm sorry, but your slavery comparison is pretty empty rhetoric. This is literally the comparison you're trying to make:
Hard work = not as bad as slavery: can't smoke in your apartment = not as bad as being homeless or hungry. It's dumb.
I would think most people in the grand scheme of things would put things like the right to a quality education, accessible and affordable healthcare and nutritious food above cigarettes.
2. Why is it we've spent so much time on "rights" and not pointed out that obvious: that smoking is one hell of an expensive habit and it sort of calls into question someone's ability to be able to afford cigarettes and the loss of a security deposit but an inability to be able to afford rent.
3. It isn't their balcony: it's the landlord's. If the landlord says you can't smoke on it, you can't smoke on it.

[Dreamer]

I pay 1/3 of the rent where I live. I live with the elderly, and unless someone dies or moves to a nursing home, they don't move out. The rules where I live are strictly enforced as well. But "NO SMOKING" isn't currently one of the rules, and I see no reason it should be. Any additional costs to refurbishing an apartment when a smoker moves out, should easily be covered by an increased security deposit for smokers. It is a war on the poor. You're just to much of a pussy to care.

Hmm.  Or maybe I have problems to face that aren't indulgent nonsense. There is a war on the poor--this isn't part of it.

[_Xenu_]

Is it a "right" to be able to smoke in your privately-owned home? Well, smoking is legal, so sure. Is it a "right" to be able to smoke in a rented home? If your landlord says you can.

Sure, and my landlord does say I can. What makes me nervous here is that some overbearing law is going to be passed that will make everyone in the complex go smoke free, whether we are government supported or not. The free market bears the costs of this arrangement, yet it threatens my freedom as well. That answers the next large paragraph as well.

Bottom line is, when it's someone else's property, they have the right to dictate what you can and can't do to their property, and you have the right to seek other accommodations.

As long as lease terms are observed on both sides, so be it. Thats the private market, what we're talking about is government regulation thats likely to overreach in many cases, such as mine. Its one thing for owners of the complex to make such rules, but its another for the government to impose them on those of us NOT on section 8.

I do understand the practical side of this. If a landlord attempts to discourage smoking indoors by requiring a security deposit and spelling out in the lease that you will forfeit that deposit if there is evidence of smoking, so be it. I get that's the way it's always been where you live, but things change.

I've noticed things change, but still see no good reason this should. You're still ignoring the larger issue of contract and properly rights, and saying the government should be allowed to override them. Again, this would be one thing in subsidized housing, where the government has to cover costs, but that's not where I am.

Fact is, in virtually every state, if smoking restrictions are included in the lease, the government will back up the landlord’s rights to create a smoke-free environment. You are of course free to violate that, and they are of course free to terminate your lease.

As it should be. Please pay attention to what I actually write.

[Dreamer]

I'm sorry, but you sound like Melissa Harris Perry here. "You call that hard work? What about slavery?" I don't smoke, but making poor people have to go out in the cold and snow to smoke their cigarettes and even banning them from smoking on their own balconies is insane.

lololol  Such entitlement!  Look, college kids face the same issues when they live in on-campus housing:  they have to go out in the cold and snow to smoke their cigarettes.  This is of course NOT a war on college students.  It's putting the burden associated with smoking exactly where it should be:  on the SMOKER who chooses to smoke.  Smokers think they have the right to pollute the air of anyone around them.  Nope, that's just entitlement bs.

[FaithIsFilth]

1. I'm sorry, but your slavery comparison is pretty empty rhetoric. This is literally the comparison you're trying to make:
Hard work = not as bad as slavery: can't smoke in your apartment = not as bad as being homeless or hungry. It's dumb.
I would think most people in the grand scheme of things would put things like the right to a quality education, accessible and affordable healthcare and nutritious food above cigarettes.
2. Why is it we've spent so much time on "rights" and not pointed out that obvious: that smoking is one hell of an expensive habit and it sort of calls into question someone's ability to be able to afford cigarettes and the loss of a security deposit but an inability to be able to afford rent.
3. It isn't their balcony: it's the landlord's. If the landlord says you can't smoke on it, you can't smoke on it.

This thread isn't about quality education, affordable healthcare, or nutritious food though. It's about smoking. There was no need for any of that to be brought up, just like there was no need for MHP to bring up slavery. It is beside the point that poor people have plenty of other things hurting them. Treating poor people like shit is treating poor people like shit, and that's what is happening here when the poor are forced 25 feet away from their apartment building to smoke. It's not ok to treat them like shit just because they don't own their balcony. It's none of our business whether these people choose to smoke. Yes, it can be an expensive habit, but you can also get the dirt cheap smokes for like $15 a carton. I'm not going to shame a poor person and wag my finger at them for buying a 15 or 25 dollar carton of smokes.

It's fine to say it's not your property so you have to follow the rules, but stupid rules are stupid rules and treating people like shit is treating people like shit. Just because you have the ability to treat poor people like shit, doesn't mean you should go ahead and do it.

[TomFoolery]

I've noticed things change, but still see no good reason this should.

Just this last week, my cousin's girlfriend's apartment complex had a fire because of a cigarette.
http://kxan.com/2015/11/24/afd-fighting-fire-at-s-austin-apartment-complex/
Just because you don't see any reason why it should change doesn't mean reasons don't exist. Yes, I get that apartments can burn down for a number of reasons, but fires started by cigarettes are 100% preventable if you don't smoke in your house.
The government also bans grills on patios due to fire safety concerns. When you live in an apartment, especially a multi-story apartment complex, your neighbors shouldn't face an increased risk of burning to death or losing everything they have because you want to smoke inside. To add to that, allowing tenants to smoke inside your building raising insurance costs. Reduced maintenance costs have already been covered. So there are plenty of reasons why a landlord would want a smoke-free building.

You're still ignoring the larger issue of contract and properly rights, and saying the government should be allowed to override them. Again, this would be one thing in subsidized housing, where the government has to cover costs, but that's not where I am.

I'm not saying the government should be allowed to override them: I'm saying when the government is acting as a landlord, they should be free to set rules.

As it should be. Please pay attention to what I actually write.

Pay attention to what I write. Everything I wrote has to do with landlord/tenant relationships. It just so happens when it comes to public housing that the government is acting as a landlord.

[aitm]

I must admit that the more I think about his the less I really care. I certainly sympathize with the OP but I really don't care anymore and I also see the argument with the waxers but I really don't care anymore. As an ex-puffer I don't get all uptight over smokers but understand the whack a moles that do. None the less, I …really don't care.

[Solomon Zorn]

I'M NOT SAYING THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY! I'm saying it is just anti-liberty to use their authority to do such a thing.

So smoking stinks. It doesn't stink as much as the attitude, that the poor shouldn't be allowed the pursuit of happiness in the privacy of their own home. If it were a question of whom I was having sex with, should a landlord/government be able to decide that as well? Next, forbid buying meat on food-stamps? I don't use food stamps but I would still stand up for their rights, as I have for the rights of gays. It's just different forms of personal liberty. Smoking should be defended as personal liberty as well. When dealing with Nazis - even health Nazis - you have to stand up for the freedoms of others, or they'll come for your freedoms next.

Before you get all cavalier about the price of "free money," you need to recognize that the poor don't really have a choice about accepting the low cost housing. I can't just move. Even a pillbox is double what I am paying, and as a 50 year old man, I need more than a pillbox.

I think when a lot of you think of the poor, you think of freeloaders that don't want to work. But many, if not most, are elderly people on social security. Some of which even have meager pensions. They are below the poverty line. That's where I live. With 80-year-olds, who deserve better than some self-righteous know-it-all government official telling them they have to give up smoking. The apartment where I live, was previously occupied by a smoker, and this complex has permitted smoking since it was built in 1977.

[Solomon Zorn]

This thread isn't about quality education, affordable healthcare, or nutritious food though. It's about smoking. There was no need for any of that to be brought up, just like there was no need for MHP to bring up slavery. It is beside the point that poor people have plenty of other things hurting them. Treating poor people like shit is treating poor people like shit, and that's what is happening here when the poor are forced 25 feet away from their apartment building to smoke. It's not ok to treat them like shit just because they don't own their balcony. It's none of our business whether these people choose to smoke. Yes, it can be an expensive habit, but you can also get the dirt cheap smokes for like $15 a carton. I'm not going to shame a poor person and wag my finger at them for buying a 15 or 25 dollar carton of smokes.

It's fine to say it's not your property so you have to follow the rules, but stupid rules are stupid rules and treating people like shit is treating people like shit. Just because you have the ability to treat poor people like shit, doesn't mean you should go ahead and do it.

Incisive comment. My smokes are $18.99 a carton (10 packs), by the way.

[Baruch]

Incisive comment. My smokes are $18.99 a carton (10 packs), by the way.

The Health Nazis

At first they came for the drinkers, but I didn't drink so I did nothing ...
Then they came for the tokers, but I didn't toke so I did nothing ...
Then they came for the smokers, but I didn't smoke so I did nothing ...
Then they came for the fat people, but I am naturally lean so I did nothing ...
Then they came for people with bad teeth, but I have been a toothless shit!

[Solomon Zorn]

Just this last week, my cousin's girlfriend's apartment complex had a fire because of a cigarette.
http://kxan.com/2015/11/24/afd-fighting-fire-at-s-austin-apartment-complex/
Just because you don't see any reason why it should change doesn't mean reasons don't exist. Yes, I get that apartments can burn down for a number of reasons, but fires started by cigarettes are 100% preventable if you don't smoke in your house.

Motorcycle accidents are 100% preventable if you don't ride motorcycles. Both ways you reduce...the risk...to yourself and others.

The government also bans grills on patios due to fire safety concerns.

Apples and oranges.

When you live in an apartment, especially a multi-story apartment complex, your neighbors shouldn't face an increased risk of burning to death or losing everything they have because you want to smoke inside.

The risk should be analyzed honestly. I am confident it will be a very slim risk.

To add to that, allowing tenants to smoke inside your building raising insurance costs. Reduced maintenance costs have already been covered.

Poor overburdened landlord...I'll have to remember him this Christmas, and give him a little extra on the rent. :a035:

You do realize that section 8 housing is not actually owned by the government, but rather by private companies, who are compensated by the government. They own and maintain the housing units and, in my understanding, do it for a profit. This is why section 8 (according to my reading of Subsection G: Applicability)is exempt from the rule. My main fear is that the owner will not have read the rule, in it's entirety, and will just float along with the tide and make us smoke-free anyway.

[Solomon Zorn]

I must admit that the more I think about his the less I really care. I certainly sympathize with the OP but I really don't care anymore and I also see the argument with the waxers but I really don't care anymore. As an ex-puffer I don't get all uptight over smokers but understand the whack a moles that do. None the less, I …really don't care.

Thanks for caring, enough to let us know that you don't care. :72:

[doorknob]

One more thing: no smoking within 25 feet of the structure, is patently absurd. Even if I were to concede the sanctity of my living-room, I won't concede my balcony. The outdoors is the outdoors. Whereas 8 or 10 feet from a public entrance is reasonable, restricting my balcony is not.

Where I live you can not smoke on your balcony (although I suspect my neighbors do) there is no smoking any where accept the designated smoking area by the dumpsters.

I have to laugh as I saw one tenants final fuck you after being evicted was smoking directly in front of the building.

because this is a brand new building they are extremely strict! I should find the rules and read some of the more anal ones.

not only this but you are also responsible for any of your guests smoking as they get out of their cars and walking across the parking lot with it. My ex would do this and piss me off to no end. Get your self kicked out of your own damned apartment not me out of mine!