Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

MySA: SAHA to ban smoking in public housing


China

Recommended Posts

SAHA to ban smoking in public housing

People won't be allowed to light up in own homes.

To the list of places where smokers no longer will be able to light up — government buildings, parks, restaurants and bars — public housing residents in San Antonio soon will add one more: their own homes.

The San Antonio Housing Authority plans to impose a new policy in January that will prohibit residents from smoking indoors or away from designated outdoor spots at all 70 of its public sites.

The ban, which will affect about 15,800 residents, aims to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke and follows a growing nationwide trend to eliminate smoking at public housing authorities.

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if it's public housing, then it isnt "their own homes" is it?

Also, if you are so poor that you need government assistance to have shelter, then you can't afford cigarettes.

I agree,not only that they are probably on the public healthcare rolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing. How bout instead of banning cigarettes, banning the addition of known cancer causing chemicals to cigarettes...

They would still cost money and stink up the place....if ya want public funds deal with it.

they are not banning cigarettes,simply smoking in the publics buildings

add

seems perfectly fair to me(a smoker) that can't smoke in the stadium or park his money paid for....not to mention in my own office.....ya want nanny **** ,I'll oblige:evilg:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm but they have no problem placing bus depots in these same communities, which have been linked to high asthma rates and higher cancer risks. Just another case of stupid politics and attacking those who they know will be able to do nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They would still cost money and stink up the place....if ya want public funds deal with it.

they are not banning cigarettes,simply smoking in the publics buildings

add

seems perfectly fair to me(a smoker) that can't smoke in the stadium or park his money paid for....not to mention in my own office.....ya want nanny **** ,I'll oblige:evilg:

Comment wasn't meant specificly for this topic, more the grand scheme of things. I find it hilarious how tobacco has gone from our biggest cash crop helping to supply the foundation of our Nation to this new great satan that will threaten the life and health of every single human being that comes near it.

I know even raw tobacco isn't the healthiest thing in the world, but this talk will only lead to the conversation of a total ban. Is this really the right way to go about dealing with tobacco?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know even raw tobacco isn't the healthiest thing in the world, but this talk will only lead to the conversation of a total ban. Is this really the right way to go about dealing with tobacco?

Yes.

There is absolutely NO benefit to allowing smoking in public housing. These people are receiving federal funds and are typically the demographic who will be on federal and/or state health insurance. Banning smoking in these buildings protects the health of ALL who are residing in public housing.

I don't see how people could seriously have a problem with this.

And yes, tobacco is very bad. It has abosolutely no health benefit and places an enormous burden on our healthcare system, both monetarily and patient capacity-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

There is absolutely NO benefit to allowing smoking in public housing. These people are receiving federal funds and are typically the demographic who will be on federal and/or state health insurance. Banning smoking in these buildings protects the health of ALL who are residing in public housing.

I don't see how people could seriously have a problem with this.

And yes, tobacco is very bad. It has abosolutely no health benefit and places an enormous burden on our healthcare system, both monetarily and patient capacity-wise.

Again, I don't like this idea because it's leading to an outright ban. Ban it from public housing if you want, but I don't like the idea of the outright ban we're heading to. It feels like we're turning our back on history, it's not heroin for crying out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm but they have no problem placing bus depots in these same communities, which have been linked to high asthma rates and higher cancer risks. Just another case of stupid politics and attacking those who they know will be able to do nothing about it.

Alternative fuel sources for public transit cuts down on pollution problem solved.

---------- Post added July-28th-2011 at 09:05 AM ----------

You are absolutely correct! It's worse, imo.

The only problem I see is enforcement. Who is going to enforce the law and what are the consequences?

The same way apartment building owners and people who rent out houses enforce it when they make the same rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm but they have no problem placing bus depots in these same communities, which have been linked to high asthma rates and higher cancer risks. Just another case of stupid politics and attacking those who they know will be able to do nothing about it.

Or, "they" put bus depots in the poor part of town, because that's where the bus customers are. :halo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "their" home, so I like it. Public funds, should go to pay for their cigarettes.

Tobacco smoking isn't that unhealthy, it's the crap they put in these delicious little ****s.

I'm in favor of banning companies from filling their products with poison and/or banning the sale of prerolled tobacco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, "they" put bus depots in the poor part of town, because that's where the bus customers are. :halo:

That would have absolutely nothing to do with it. A bus has a set route so you would think that it would make sense for the depot to be located in either the beginning or the ends of those routes yet many times they are irrationally located in poorer sections of cities not because they save gas being in that location but because of NIMBY politics and the lack of a unified political voice in these communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would have absolutely nothing to do with it. A bus has a set route so you would think that it would make sense for the depot to be located in either the beginning or the ends of those routes yet many times they are irrationally located in poorer sections of cities not because they save gas being in that location but because of NIMBY politics and the lack of a unified political voice in these communities.
:whoknows: Aren't a lot of bus routes run from poor neighborhoods? I think you're helping Larry's argument here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...