If you live in gov't housing,you can't smoke *INSIDE* of your home in Kansas City, Mo

[JEDI]

http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/05/06/smoking-ban-public-housing-kansas-city

Kansas City, Mo., is just the latest place to ban puffing on cancer sticks in government housing.

The Kansas City ban has its roots in a 2012 fire started by a smoker who dropped a cigarette. It set the resident’s building ablaze, displacing him and eight other people. The damage cost the housing authority $250,000.


In OT instead of P&N because I'm not adding commentary.

In P&N instead of OT because it's P&N material. Also changed title to reflect reality. Poor people can smoke in their homes as long as they don't live in Kansas City public housing or in an apartment where smoking is not allowed or in a rented house that prohibits smoking or... .
admin allisolm

 

[Rakehellion]

Works for me. You own the building, you make the rules.

 

[yinan]

Sounds good to me. Why should you be using MY money to buy smokes and drive up the cost of your health care that I also pay for.

Hell, if you are poor and are caught smoking you assistance should be cut off immediately with no possibility of reinstatement.

 

[oynaz]

Yeah, that is OK. IMO, they should ban all electricity in government housing too. A lot of fires are caused by faulty electrical equipment and wiring.

 

[yinan]

Yeah, that is OK. IMO, they should ban all electricity in government housing too. A lot of fires are caused by faulty electrical equipment and wiring.

I also have no problem with that. Why do I have to pay my electric bill and you do not. I say get rid of government housing completely. What are you doing that provides any benefit to society except smoking crack all day?

 

[thedarkwolf]

and I have to pay for that crack.

 

[disappoint]

"If you're poor, you cannot smoke *INSIDE* of your home in Kansas City, Mo"

404 Your home not found. Poor choice or misleading thread title -10 pts.

 

[gorcorps]

"If you're poor, you cannot smoke *INSIDE* of your home in Kansas City, Mo"

404 Your home not found. Poor choice or misleading thread title -10 pts.

sounds fair

 

[waggy]

"If you're poor, you cannot smoke *INSIDE* of your home in Kansas City, Mo"

404 Your home not found. Poor choice or misleading thread title -10 pts.

lol this

 

[Lonyo]

Plus smoking causes damage generally such as making everything smell.
When you move out, someone has to move in. Extra costs to clean the house to make it liveable again.

Reduces the risk of fire, and reduces the cost as well. Good move for the homeowner.
It's like a landlord who says "no pets". Why? Because they can. Pets can cause damage etc, so they don't want pets in their property. Smokers cause damage and are risky, so they don't want people smoking in their property.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Sounds good to me. Why should you be using MY money to buy smokes and drive up the cost of your health care that I also pay for.

That is a poor argument. It is well known that cigarette smoking actually cuts down on lifetime entitlement expenditures because you often drop dead at an early age of a heart or lung disease, and you aren't sucking off Social Security and Medicare for 20 years. If the idea was to cut long-term costs we should be airdropping cigs into poor parts of cities like they are Berlin.

Overall I agree with the thread. Your place your rules.

 

[smitbret]

Here's another list of restrictions that I think would be appropriate:

1 - No Rent-To-Own items with the exception of children's bedding and kitchen appliances

2 - If you have a DUI or Public Intoxication conviction within the last 10 years then a breathalyzer will be installed on your door lock

3 - Must perform 8 hours/month of maintenance for the facility outside of your own unit. It could be mowing the lawn, snow removal, etc.

4 - Total # of inhabitants of any unit can not exceed 2 per bedroom. 4 bedrooms=8 people

5 - No pets. You can't afford one.

 

[xanis]

Here's another list of restrictions that I think would be appropriate:

1 - No Rent-To-Own items with the exception of children's bedding and kitchen appliances

2 - If you have a DUI or Public Intoxication conviction within the last 10 years then a breathalyzer will be installed on your door lock

3 - Must perform 8 hours/month of maintenance for the facility outside of your own unit. It could be mowing the lawn, snow removal, etc.

4 - Total # of inhabitants of any unit can not exceed 2 per bedroom. 4 bedrooms=8 people

5 - No pets. You can't afford one.

I like all of these. :thumbsup:

 

[smitbret]

That is a poor argument. It is well known that cigarette smoking actually cuts down on lifetime entitlement expenditures because you often drop dead at an early age of a heart or lung disease, and you aren't sucking off Social Security and Medicare for 20 years. If the idea was to cut long-term costs we should be airdropping cigs into poor parts of cities like they are Berlin.

Overall I agree with the thread. Your place your rules.

LOL

 

[waggy]

Here's another list of restrictions that I think would be appropriate:

1 - No Rent-To-Own items with the exception of children's bedding and kitchen appliances

2 - If you have a DUI or Public Intoxication conviction within the last 10 years then a breathalyzer will be installed on your door lock

3 - Must perform 8 hours/month of maintenance for the facility outside of your own unit. It could be mowing the lawn, snow removal, etc.

4 - Total # of inhabitants of any unit can not exceed 2 per bedroom. 4 bedrooms=8 people

5 - No pets. You can't afford one.

i like it. small changes though

1) i would just keep electronic items off it. allow people to get beds/furniture and washing machines. NO tv, no ps3, etc

5) in all honesty pets are great for kids. I think the positives outweigh the negatives on this.

 

[xanis]

5) in all honesty pets are great for kids. I think the positives outweigh the negatives on this.

I agree that pets are great for kids. However, if you're struggling to provide for your kids, pet food and care is an unnecessary expense (IMO). My SO works at a shelter and you'd be surprised at how many pets get surrendered because families can't afford them.

 

[Gibsons]

i like it. small changes though

1) i would just keep electronic items off it. allow people to get beds/furniture and washing machines. NO tv, no ps3, etc

5) in all honesty pets are great for kids. I think the positives outweigh the negatives on this.

5 is a little tricky. Irresponsible pet owners are really bad news for everyone involved.

 

[waggy]

I agree that pets are great for kids. However, if you're struggling to provide for your kids, pet food and care is an unnecessary expense (IMO). My SO works at a shelter and you'd be surprised at how many pets get surrendered because families can't afford them.

i know. that alone would be enough to justify #5. I am really torn on it. I know my dogs/snakes/dragons make my day better. My kids love having the animals and take the responsibility of care and feeding seriously.

 

[xanis]

i know. that alone would be enough to justify #5. I am really torn on it. I know my dogs/snakes/dragons make my day better. My kids love having the animals and take the responsibility of care and feeding seriously.

It's not so much the caring that I'm talking about, it's the lack of financial priorities that a lot of people on government assistance seem to have. My SO works at a shelter; there are at least a few people every day that walk in in their brand new clothes clutching their iPhone 5s that want to surrender their dog or cat because they "can't afford it".

 

[HardcoreRobot]

well, thats a start.

 

[waggy]

It's not so much the caring that I'm talking about, it's the lack of financial priorities that a lot of people on government assistance seem to have. My SO works at a shelter; there are at least a few people every day that walk in in their brand new clothes clutching their iPhone 5s that want to surrender their dog or cat because they "can't afford it".

yeah. that's just insane.

 

[Genx87]

Don't see the problem with this. The govt owns the housing, they can make the rules about smoking.

 

[dmcowen674]

If you live in gov't housing,you can't smoke *INSIDE* of your home in Kansas City, Mo

Good

Shouldn't be wasting money on cancer sticks anyway since can't afford a roof over your head to begin with.

 

[Anarchist420]

i think it is stupid to prohibit smoking in govt property because of

1 all the enforcement costs
2 the fact that even if people in govt property did get jobs and moved into their own home, the State still wouldnt quit spending as much as it does now;
3it will make the places more desirable for people who hate smoking;
4 it is a reform rather than a reduction or abolition of public housing

Don't see the problem with this. The govt owns the housing, they can make the rules about smoking.

but the State illegitimately owns nearly everything and it shouldnt have the power to make rules (like banning nudity in front of the white house) on property it stole.

 

[Genx87]

i think it is stupid to prohibit smoking in govt property because of

1 all the enforcement costs
2 the fact that even if people in govt property did get jobs and moved into their own home, the State still wouldnt quit spending as much as it does now;
3it will make the places more desirable for people who hate smoking;
4 it is a reform rather than a reduction or abolition of public housing

but the State illegitimately owns nearly everything and it shouldnt have the power to make rules (like banning nudity in front of the white house) on property it stole.

Eh define illegitimately. This is a public housing project. The govt owns and runs the building. The people put in place can set policy to help preserve the value of this public property.

I don't see this as a freedom of speech issue and the comparison doesn't make sense.