Americans in a million homes could be banned from smoking

mrsir2009

macrumors 604
Sep 17, 2009
7,501
156
0
22
Melbourne, Australia
To be fair smoking is banned indoors in my block of flats, so I'm not sure I see a big issue.
Of course, having smoke inside the house discolours the walls/ceiling, and when the smoker moves out the apartment it will still reek of smoke which the new tenant certainly won't like if they aren't a smoker.

Also smoke alarms exist now, which would cause problems.
 

mrsir2009

macrumors 604
Sep 17, 2009
7,501
156
0
22
Melbourne, Australia
It is good when Conservatives who usually support freedom support the nanny state just like liberals do.
Within this context though the government is the landlord of the housing projects. So he's supporting the freedom of the landlord to make rules to protect their property from the tenants. I don't see how that's incompatible with personal freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meister

shinji

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2007
1,285
1,481
0
They are poor. They can't afford a home. Give up smoking and the $$ that goes with it, and you can move into your own non-subsidized home. I like this plan.
That is an idealist fantasy. The savings from quitting smoking aren't high enough to get them in non-subsidized housing.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,252
0
UK
Within this context though the government is the landlord of the housing projects. So he's supporting the freedom of the landlord to make rules to protect their property from the tenants. I don't see how that's incompatible with personal freedom.
True. Except in reality you'd just lose your deposit for smoking if that was against the rules in a private rental.

Well, smoking is expensive. If they are so poor they have to live in state housing then why are they smoking in the first place?
That seems very nanny.
 

mudslag

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2010
139
9,577
0
Hold on, don't most landlords already prohibit tenants from smoking inside their houses and apartments? Who actually smokes inside anymore? That's dirty.

Yes and policies like this for renters has been going on for years. Smoking does a lot of damage to homes, it gets into the walls and carpets which is costly to fix. Then there are issues with second hand smoke that could effect neighbors, specially in older buildings that aren't as insulated between apts. People also tend to forget that the gov doesn't own the homes that they subsidize, those are still private owners who can still some control over their buildings. Which could still cost the owners money if tenants damage the home.
 

shinji

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2007
1,285
1,481
0
Well, smoking is expensive. If they are so poor they have to live in state housing then why are they smoking in the first place?
But who are we to tell them how to live their lives? This is a legal substance after all, and it's immoral to leverage the fact they have nowhere else to go.

And that's to say nothing about how unrealistic the goals of this policy actually are. Suppose tenants simply ignore the ban, continue smoking, get fined, and then don't pay the fine. What are we going to do, toss families out on the streets for smoking and end up with a much worse and more expensive problem?
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
0
Well, smoking is expensive. If they are so poor they have to live in state housing then why are they smoking in the first place?
Or buying steaks, or driving nice cars, or owning large screen TVs, or ...

They're poor. Don't they understand they're supposed to sacrifice any and all of life's comforts or pleasures until they rise to at least the middle class?
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,486
0
Criminal Mexi Midget
But who are we to tell them how to live their lives? This is a legal substance after all, and it's immoral to leverage the fact they have nowhere else to go.

And that's to say nothing about how unrealistic the goals of this policy actually are. Suppose tenants simply ignore the ban, continue smoking, get fined, and then don't pay the fine. What are we going to do, toss families out on the streets for smoking and end up with a much worse and more expensive problem?
They can go anywhere they wish, they simply have to get off social assistance
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrsir2009 and pdqgp

shinji

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2007
1,285
1,481
0
You don't understand how expensive a habit this has become. I have friends who have quite smoking, and after a single year were able to afford a cruise from the savings.
Even at $10/pack, a pack a day habit is only $300/mo. Not enough to pay for private housing in the cities where this problem exists.

jkcerda said:
They can go anywhere they wish, they simply have to get off social assistance
Or we could simply not create another pointless federal regulation. But I guess then we don't get the cheap thrill out of talking down to society's poorest members.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,486
0
Criminal Mexi Midget
Even at $10/pack, a pack a day habit is only $300/mo. Not enough to pay for private housing in the cities where this problem exists.



Or we could simply not create another pointless federal regulation. But I guess then we don't get the cheap thrill out of talking down to society's poorest members.
Pray/say/tell how it will be enforced? F they can afford cigarettes they should be able to afford their own health care, they will need it when they get cancer. ,$300 a month is a small car payment
 
Last edited:

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,252
0
UK
Pray/say/tell how it will be enforced? F they can afford cigarettes they should be shot to afford their own health care, they will need it when they get cancer. ,$300 a month is a small car payment
Smokers do pay for their own healthcare - through cigarette taxes.
 

shinji

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2007
1,285
1,481
0
Pray/say/tell how it will be enforced? F they can afford cigarettes they should be shot to afford their own health care, they will need it when they get cancer. ,$300 a month is a small car payment
The difficulty enforcing it is another argument against it. When they inevitably don't pay their fines, we'll be burdening inner city cops who should be dealing with more serious crimes.

$300 was just an example to show that even smoking a pack a day at a high price is not enough to pay for housing. The average housing projects smoker might be paying and smoking less.
 

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,322
7,585
0
Boston
turns out that it's only people living in government housing projects that won't be able to toke up......so you'll be ok. :p
Not to be crude, but if someone is on government assistance, they should not be wasting their money on smoking anything.

Of course, having smoke inside the house discolours the walls/ceiling, and when the smoker moves out the apartment it will still reek of smoke which the new tenant certainly won't like if they aren't a smoker.

Also smoke alarms exist now, which would cause problems.
Absolutely, there is a significant cost associated with repairing smoke damage. My apartment forbids smoking. So should these properties.

That is an idealist fantasy. The savings from quitting smoking aren't high enough to get them in non-subsidized housing.
A pack of cigarettes in Mass is about $10. If someone smokes a pack a day (a pretty average amount for a regular smoker), that's $70 a week, roughy $300 a month. That's a substantial amount of money. That could be easily be 1/3 of an apartment rental right there.
 

pdqgp

macrumors 68020
Mar 23, 2010
2,130
5,432
0
A pack of cigarettes in Mass is about $10. If someone smokes a pack a day (a pretty average amount for a regular smoker), that's $70 a week, roughy $300 a month. That's a substantial amount of money. That could be easily be 1/3 of an apartment rental right there.
but if we legalize weed they will likely get stoned and not smoke as often and actually save that money to be used other places in their budget right? :cool:
 

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,322
7,585
0
Boston
but if we legalize weed they will likely get stoned and not smoke as often and actually save that money to be used other places in their budget right? :cool:
Huh? They closed the other thread so you had to keep going?

In June in Colorado weed was $30-45 for 1/8th oz or $250-$300 per 1 oz. Of course weed smoking habits are highly variable. If someone is smoking very regularly, then I'd say 2 weeks is an average amount. That equals $500-600/month... Which is more than $300. o_O

But let's not get too off topic here :cool:
 

AlliFlowers

Contributor
Jan 1, 2011
4,407
8,231
0
L.A. (Lower Alabama)
allibama.net
Even at $10/pack, a pack a day habit is only $300/mo. Not enough to pay for private housing in the cities where this problem exists.
Are you suggesting the problem only exists in certain cities? I think not. It exists in every city. Where I live, $300/mo can get you quite a nice place to live, far away from our overcrowded Section 8 housing areas.

Smokers do pay for their own healthcare - through cigarette taxes.
Those taxes don't go to healthcare. What are you thinking?! You remind me of Mitt Romney, when he stated that all health issues could be taken care of in emergency rooms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

samiwas

macrumors 68000
Aug 26, 2006
1,575
3,517
0
Atlanta, GA
I'm sorry? I'm not sure what you are assuming about my position, but I don't support any public housing at all.
I'm curious if you support any public assistance at all...

You don't understand how expensive a habit this has become. I have friends who have quite smoking, and after a single year were able to afford a cruise from the savings.
In some areas. Where I live, you could give up a pack a day habit (which is more than most people smoke), and it would save you only about $120 a month. Still a decent amount of money, but hardly life-changing.

Are you suggesting the problem only exists in certain cities? I think not. It exists in every city. Where I live, $300/mo can get you quite a nice place to live, far away from our overcrowded Section 8 housing areas.
I don't know where you live, but even in my cheap-ass state with cheap-ass cigarettes, $300 a month won't even buy you a cardboard box next to the highway 25 miles outside of town.

Okay, that's probably exaggerating, but before they tore down the near-condemned apartments next to our development, with their roofs caving in, their high crime, and their rodents, those apartments were I think $480 for a one bedroom. And we aren't in any hipster area here.

Pray/say/tell how it will be enforced? F they can afford cigarettes they should be shot
I love cutting off quotes sometimes....

------------------------------

As a past full-time smoker, and a current sometimes-smoker, I don't have a problem with this in theory, just in terms of "freedom". Even when I was a full-time smoker, and when I shared a room with another full-time smoker, we never smoked in the room. I have never smoked inside any place I have lived. I know plenty who have, and their places stank. Even now with our hookah, we take it outside.

But I do find it funny how some people have major problems with the government dictating something, until it's something they don't like. Then, they're all about it.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
0
... But I do find it funny how some people have major problems with the government dictating something, until it's something they don't like. Then, they're all about it.
I'm beginning to come around on this issue.

How about this ... blanket policy that prohibits ANY smoking in ALL public buildings or publicly subsidized buildings. No smoking in the White House, the Capitol, in army barracks ... anywhere, by anyone.

If we apply this ban consistently, across the board, then that alleviates my suspicion that we're just punishing the poor for the sin of being poor.
 

lowendlinux

Contributor
Sep 24, 2014
5,150
6,299
0
North Country (way upstate NY)
I'm beginning to come around on this issue.

How about this ... blanket policy that prohibits ANY smoking in ALL public buildings or publicly subsidized buildings. No smoking in the White House, the Capitol, in army barracks ... anywhere, by anyone.

If we apply this ban consistently, across the board, then that alleviates my suspicion that we're just punishing the poor for the sin of being poor.
I think that's already the case for the most part