Burlington, Vt., bans smoking in public housing

[The Straight Story]

Burlington, Vt., bans smoking in public housing

The Burlington Housing Authority has banned smoking in the Vermont city's subsidized housing complexes.

And that has some residents upset.

The smoking ban took effect Nov. 1. It's part of a movement headed by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development designed to make low-income housing a healthier place for all its residents.

The Housing Authority's Paul Dettman says people who want to smoke need to leave the property.

Sherry Forte who lives in Burlington's Decker Towers says dogs in Vermont are treated better than smokers.

http://www.necn.com/11/18/10/Burlington-Vt-bans-smoking-in-public-hou/landing_politics.html?&blockID=3&apID=6c058c803f104694a7c737face835fe4

Rich? You can do as you please. I am going to post this on Facebook and I bet the RW folks will go along with it. Give money to poor people - you own them and should be able to control them. Give money to the rich? You should thank them after you give it to them.

[flamingdem]

1. Good luck with that! nt

[I Have A Dream]

2. I don't like smoking, but this is ridiculous.

:(

[Barack_America]

3. I do believe that landlords generally have the right to prohibit smoking in their properties.

[Kalyke]

4. The landlord here is US. You and me. Or, technically, Vermonters.

I think the good people of Vermont probably care more about getting jobs than whether a poor person is smoking in a building.

[Barack_America]

7. Ideally the choice would begin with the tenants of the buildings in question.

I live in an old apartment building with poor ventilation. When a neighbor smokes they might as well be lighting up in my apartment. If a smoking ban came to a vote in my building I would vote for it. However, this building belongs to my landlords and they are not interested in holding such a vote. But if my landlord were the government, I might consider pushing the issue further. Fortunately, none of my current neighbors smoke and my asthma has improved considerably.

[The Straight Story]

5. Reminds me of David Duke wanting to institute drug testing for people on welfare

Don't want the money? Then you don't have to take it.

Here, let me help you out a bit - govt and the rich fuck up the country, more people need assistance, govt and powerful folks who own them decide that the people they screwed over should follow their personal religious, err non-religious, beliefs if they want to be helped.

Remove the jobs, create dependency, gain control over people and their choices.

My body, my choice.

WE own the government, WE are for freedom and choice.

If others want to use this as a method to control people and their choices than they can go screw themselves :)

[Barack_America]

9. It's not the same. There are no consequences of "second-hand" drug use.

However, second hand smoke has real consequences for those with asthma, allergies and sinus disorders.

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. Of course there are consequences of 2nd hand drug use.

Ask any child who has gown up around an addict or alcoholic.

kids breathe in drug smoke.
Kids being around meth used or made in a house can get very ill.
Drunk parents fall asleep with lit cigarettes and burn down houses, abuse or neglect kids.

I have found 2 year olds wandering around a neighborhood at midnight, parents passed out at home.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Concur

Smoking is becoming more of a lower class affliction and the taxes on it on very regressive. Given the additional costs to maintain smoked in units, I could agree with this.

We owned rental property only once, our house when we got our first overseas posting. We did not allow smoking in it. When the first set of tenants left, it smelled like a chimney. They forfeited their deposits and got a bill.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. It's not about rich versus poor. Plenty of higher end apartment ...

.. complexes ban smoking.

The issue is slob versus non-slob. I'll say it - if you smoke inside your home on a regular basis, you are a slob.

Subsidized housing doesn't change that fact. Why should the housing authority have to re-paint over your nicotine stained walls?

[Kalyke]

14. Because they should repaint, anyway.

What about greasy walls from frying food? Those are far more offensive and can't be cleaned. A smoker can clean their walls or smoke near a window.

[lise]

8. it's stuff like this

that points out why people are off base (tho well-meaning) when they suggest that, for instance, .gov should usurp abandoned foreclosed buildings and turn them into Public Housing.

No. No. No.

Gov needs to get OUT of the business of propping up home prices and let the price of property fall to where it should be in this environment of falling wages and flat out unemployment.

If they'd just shut down Fannie and Freddie, HUD , etc. and quit Bailing the Banks, these folks who are now dependent on .gov for homes could go out and rent, or even BUY cheaply.

[Kalyke]

15. Go back to Freeper Land, please.

This has nothing to do with Freddie or Fannie, which are Republican talking points. We like our mortgage write-offs, as the working class, thank you.

[LawnKorn]

11. Well isn't that just something

Now the residents have to go down to the street corner to smoke where they can be robbed by the street gangs.

The law of unintended consequences will comeback to bite.

[Better Believe It]

13. Yet another way to stick it to working class folks in the name of protecting them from themselves!

I take it those folks will also be required to smoke pot in the streets rather than in the privacy of their homes or drop their drug "addiction".

They won't be arrested smoking in public, right?