Low incoming housing tenants smoking mad over new smoke free proposal

ihatesmokers said on February 17, 2010 at 1:25 PM

SORRY TO THE PATHETIC LOOKING BLOATED SMOKER WITH THE LARGE HEAD- SMOKING AROUND ALREADY INFIRMED FOLKS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA-ESPECIALLY FOR FREELOADERS PLEASE PRODUCE YOUR DD-214 ALONG WITH YOUR FIELD SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITY RATING. MAYBE THE STATE SHOULD TAKE CUSTODY OF YOUR SON TO SAVE HIM FROM THE SECOND HAND SMOKE. YOU LOOK HEALTHY ENOUGH TO FLIP HAMBURGERS AND GET OFF THE WELFARE ROLL THAN KS AAAINTELLIGENT

ihatesmokers said on February 17, 2010 at 1:24 PM

SORRY TO THE PATHETIC LOOKING BLOATED SMOKER WITH THE LARGE HEAD- SMOKING AROUND ALREADY INFIRMED FOLKS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA-ESPECIALLY FOR FREELOADERS PLEASE PRODUCE YOUR DD-214 ALONG WITH YOUR FIELD SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITY RATING. MAYBE THE STATE SHOULD TAKE CUSTODY OF YOUR SON TO SAVE HIM FROM THE SECOND HAND SMOKE. YOU LOOK HEALTHY ENOUGH TO FLIP HAMBURGERS AND GET OFF THE WELFARE ROLL THAN KS AAAINTELLIGENT

ihatesmokers said on February 16, 2010 at 10:49 PM

DEAR CLEAN AIR SEEKER, WHAT IS THE WORLD IS AN OVERWEIGHT MIDDLE AGED WOMAN WHO IS ON THE PUBLIC DOLE SMOKING CIGARETTES(I WONDER IF ALCOHOLISM IS RESPONCIBLE FOR HER DISTENDED AB'S) MS. BAKER SHOULD BE THANKFUL SHE HAS A PLACE TO LIVE IN WHICH SHE PAYS ACCORDING TO HER INCOME. HER CLAIM THAT SHE IS A HER RENT IS UNDERWRITTEN BY THE TAPAYER. MS BAKERS DISABLED VETERAN STATUS IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND IRRELEVANT. ( DD-214 AND HER SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITY RATING PENDING) WHEN ONE ENTERS THE REALM OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, ONE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO RESPECT REASONABLE REQUESTS TO OBSTAIN FROM ACTIONS THAT ARE NOT IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH INTEREST. PUBLIC HOUSING =PUBLIC HEALTH ECELENCE AS A GOAL. MS .BAKER DOESN'T HAVE TO STOP SMOKING. SHE AND OTHERS LIKE HER CAN NO LONGER SMOKE IN HER APT. MS. BAKER SHOULD MAKE THE EFFORT TO SMOKE OUTSIDE PUBLIC HOUSING PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC DESCENCY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION . BOBBIE BEST

getrealppl said on January 25, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Masterblaster, I agree with you about the separate buildings. The main thing I have a problem with is when people live off the government and then get mad about having rules imposed on them. The HUD smoking ban is just the tip of the iceberg as far as that topic goes, and I'm not even going to get started on that. :) As far as the smoking ban, I really don't mind it that much. My ex husband was allergic to cigarette smoke, and before that law passed there was hardly ANYWHERE we could go. We never went to bars or anything like that anyway, but most restaurants, arcades, and bowling alleys were so full of smoke that he couldn't be there. I like being able to go into my favorite restaurant and not have the smell of smoke killing the flavor of the food. And as far as WA State, hotels do not have to be non smoking. It's a choice a lot of them have made because of the damage smoking in a guest room does to the room and the surrounding rooms.

freeamerican said on January 24, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Im a X smoker if hud or anyone else wants something to do USE YOUR ENERGY TOWARDS THE ONES THAT ARE HERE WITH OUT THERE GREEN CARD AND LEAVE THE LEGAL AMERICAN ALONE WORRY ABOUT THE DRINKING AND DRUGS WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE SMOKERS IF YOU DONT LIKE THE SMELL WHY DONT YOU MOVE

diane_54 said on January 24, 2010 at 8:03 PM

A local senior housing building had such a mess when a smoker moved out (yes, he "owned" the unit) that three cleaning companies refused to clean the unit for a new owner. Smoke had permeated the wall, ceiling and carpeting-even the INSIDE of the cupboards reeked. Of course, the cost of the cleaning came out of what he received when the condo resold...but the building went non-smoking after that fiasco.

masterblaster said on January 24, 2010 at 10:52 AM

getrealppl, if it is the government's property it is our property. So, we all have a say, even people who disagree with me. BTW, I lean towards your assessment other than the comment about who owns the property. Still, separate buildings is the easiest solution. It avoids the expense of the litigation that is likely to ensue.

masterblaster said on January 24, 2010 at 10:47 AM

When I was in the Air Force I used to get a kick out of the smokers telling the chewers that it was not their job to empty the spittoons but the chewers must empty the ashtrays.

masterblaster said on January 24, 2010 at 10:46 AM

1. Just have smoking and non-smoking buildings. If people want to commit suicide on the installment plan so be it. 2. As far as whether or not second hand smoke causes cancer I couldn't care less but cigarette smoke stinks and so do smokers. I don't have the right to burn sulfur in my house if it stinks up your house, why do you think you get to stink up my house with your stinking cigarette fumes. 3. We need to repeal the law that bans smoking in motels, bars and restaurants. If the place allowed smoking I didn't patronize it, I was happy, the stinking smokers were happy and the owner was happy. Now smokers have to go outside and spread their vial stench around the sidewalks where I don't have a realistic option to avoid it. Then many of them throw the butts on the ground. 4. If you tell me cigarettes don't smell bad also tell me why drivers throw the butts out their car windows instead of putting them in an ashtray until they get to a trash can.

getrealppl said on January 21, 2010 at 8:25 PM

The point is, if you are willing to depend on the government for housing, you have no right to squawk about a few regulations. The majority of privately owned apartment complexes ban smoking inside the units. You don't hear the people who rent those apartments complaining that their landlords are taking away their rights by not letting them smoke inside. So what's the difference? It's not YOUR property, it's the GOVERNMENTS property. They get to decide what to do with it, not you.

leahclb2 said on January 21, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Interesting. It would probably surprise most of you people that the people who use HUD housing are hard working families. We ALL pay taxes, and yet because we have a preference that you do not like, we are to be treated like second class citizens? Remember this, if HUD gets this passed, the door will be open for the government to make it legal to come into YOUR home, because the precedent will already be in place. According to the survey HUD is even targeting the housing for the retired people, who have worked all their lives. As for cost? How much do you spend daily at Starbucks? lunch? drinks after work? What right do you have to pass judgment on those who just want to live in peace in the privacy of their own homes? More damage is caused from drunks, and candles left unattended. So get over yourselves. It could be your door they knock on next.

spoklahoma said on January 21, 2010 at 7:16 PM

this is what is wrong with y'all up here. "Lepinski says the housing authority will be reading over the surveys for the next couple of months. Then the board will decide whether to ban smoking in all HUD housing." You've got something that not only is a health issue, a fire hazard, AND lowers the value of the property (that YOU THE TAXPAYER OWN) - and we are STILL gonna throw money around to "try and find a solution" when just simply saying No Smoking after Feb 1st will solve the problem. Take yr fat 8ss outside if you wanna smoke. How hard is that?

spoklahoma said on January 21, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Chris Baker enjoys a pack of cigarettes a day. The disabled veteran says even though she’s lived in government subsidized housing for two years, she cant figure out how to open the door to get outside and smoke......

knight1954 said on January 21, 2010 at 2:09 PM

I forgot to mention earlier, that with more government regulation, comes more government personnel, which means more taxes, which comes from where? From you , and you don't have it now and you don't want anymore do you? The government just wants you and your dollars which you already don't have. Regulation costs, in loss of freedom and increased taxes.

dukeofearl said on January 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM

I applaud this agency for taking this bold move. I am a life time non-smoker and I object to having to breath your filthy garbage. If you do not care about yourselves think about your children and those around you. So you smoked all your lives, big deal, you stink to high heaven. You cause massive damages from your habit, people around you can not enjoy their homes because your stinking smoke wafts into adjoining units. You are supposed to be on a fixed income how the heck can you afford this habit. I do not want to live anywhere near a smoker and run the risk that you will set fire to the apartment.

knight1954 said on January 21, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Face it. Here comes the government ready to take away your freedom as well as your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I don't smoke and never have but I'm not going to tell you that you can't smoke in your home or in the restaurant. By the way, what happens to friends and family that want to come over for the visit or the needed stay. They don't come because they can't enjoy themselves. there goes the family, just as government wants. The government wants more control over your life and this how they do it., one small step at a time.

whatsyurbeef said on January 21, 2010 at 6:58 AM

I believe talking to a smoker about keeping their cancer ridden addiction to themselves is an act of futility at best, it's like trying to convince any drug addict that quiting drugs is a good thing. So smokers smoke smoke smoke those cigarettes smoke smoke smoke until you smoke yourselves to death, tell st. peter at the pearly gate he's gonna have to wait cause you just got to have another cigarette. So Whats your Beef ?

notafinger said on January 21, 2010 at 6:41 AM

So just go outside your front door and smoke...I do it all the time. Then your neighbors will complain about you being there so you'll be moved into the parking lot. ALL of you non-smokers have a bad habit.....The day you quit yours and the government bans it.....The day I'll quit smoking.

edogg said on January 20, 2010 at 11:41 PM

You don't like it? Move or quit smoking. Sounds pretty simple to me.

dino2000 said on January 20, 2010 at 11:37 PM

if this ban is on smoking inside the house, i say yes if i want to walk out side in a 10 mile per hour wind and smoke i say yes i can. we are older people who grew up with cig advertisments, smoking on tv. old westerns, drinking, smoking , perry mason smoking, even andy taylor in mayberry smoked you young folk better be worring about the future of our land. because we old folk will be dying off , we won't be able to give any more advice. we had fun and we lived to be old without .all these warning labels. THINK.

bobbymarley said on January 20, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Don't see why this is such a big deal. Most private sector landlords already ban smoking inside. Why should the government sector be allowing it. Lets face it. If you don't own your home and are a smoker, get ready to be smoking outside. I am a smoker myself by the way.

independant said on January 20, 2010 at 11:27 PM

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn`t buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he feels that no one should have one. If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.. If a liberal is, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone. If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good. If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect. If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him. If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down. If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

independant said on January 20, 2010 at 11:21 PM

This cracks me up. Many people vote for certain candidates because they give them a check. Voters were told to beware, that if you vote them in, they will think you want them to help you run your personal lives. You who continue to vote them in, how do you like it? Did you not think there would be a trade off? Sheeple will never get it. Some would like to have their cake and eat it too. You know who you are. You are the biggest of hypocrites.

harleyrider2009 said on January 20, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist states "An association is generally considered weak if the relative risk is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer. Therefore, you can see any concern of second hand smoke causing lung cancer is highly questionable." Note that the Relative Risk (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 and all cancers from chlorinated water ranked at 1.25. These are higher risks than the average ETS risk. If we believe second hand smoke to be a danger for lung cancer then we should also never drink milk or chlorinated water.

harleyrider1978 said on January 20, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on ETS, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean. To put it in perspective, Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." The National Cancer Institute states "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to mere chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.

primalfeline said on January 20, 2010 at 9:41 PM

A person can legally buy a carton of generic cigarettes such as Native brand for 20 dollars, that makes it 2 dollars a pack so please get your facts straight folks. I know a lot of these low income housing people. All I are polite and ask if I mind before they light up. Even if I'm visiting their own home they ask first. As far as damages go or health risks, well there's been more gun related incidents and violent crimes in subsidized housing why don't you get on that band wagon? Those offenders are doing something a heck of a lot stronger than tobacco and illegal to boot! Or how about the residents that live in subsidized housing and drive a brand new SUV, their kids wear designer clothes, they have cable, internet, and cell phones and I mean blackberry's. Theres our tax dollars at work ! Ive cleaned up after non smokers(their apartments)and I had to literally use a shovel. And a mask! Smoking in your own home doesn't make all smokers a risk. A non smoker burned my rental house down

blatherskitepi said on January 20, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Smoking is a privilege, not a right, if I'm footing the bill. If you can afford such a luxury, you can afford non-subsidized housing.

deermeadows said on January 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM

The qualification for low income housing is based on "income", not on how the money is spent so whether a tenant chooses to use his or her limited income on smoking is not the issue. The problem comes from the costs associated with the smoker in a residential unit. We have declined to accept smokers because of the higher cost of maintenance and cleaning, the fact that a smoker fell asleep while smoking and caused a dangerous and expensive fire, and the general "messiness" of smokers. They often do not see their cigarette ashes and butts as littering. After losing qualified applicants because they did not like the lingering odors of smokers we changed to a non-smoking unit several years ago and no one has suffered a loss of habitat as a result, we have not had another fire, the littering has been considerably reduced and the cost of cleaning an apartment for a new rental has been substantially reduced. Government funding should not be used to clean up after smokers.

perch23 said on January 20, 2010 at 8:07 PM

If the government is paying your rent because you are too broke to pay it your self, then perhaps you shouldnt smoke. In the end, it is we, the folks who pay their taxes and dont suck off of the nipples of the government that will have to pay to take care of you when you get your smoking related illnesses. I agree with the ban one hundred percent. If you would prefer, you could live outside and you could still smoke. Why should tax dollars go to remodel the damages that your stinky filthy smoke has left behind? Dont make your addiction our problem any more than you already do!!

noyankeefans said on January 20, 2010 at 7:32 PM

I agree, if you can afford up to $12.00 a day for your cigs, you don't need low income housing. Get them out and let the people who really struggle to survive with their children have those low income apts who are not so selfish to spend that moeny on their filthy habit! Disgusting!

jtitchen said on January 20, 2010 at 7:11 PM

To intqrugrv--it is the government's business if it's government subsidized housing these people are living in. And like whatsyurbeef points out, smoking is an incredibly expensive habit. If these people need subsidized housing, how in the world can they afford to fund their habit? Besides, when these people have smoking related health issues, the government (in the form of our tax dollars) will be paying for their medical treatment.

intqruqrv said on January 20, 2010 at 6:37 PM

First it is the people who live in these houses next it will be people who live in their own house...if 5 people around you don't smoke then the government will come in & say you are messing up their air...so they will regulate you also.. It is none of the governments business where you live to tell you not to smoke there...slowly the government is taking over everything...what next...??

hardwroc said on January 20, 2010 at 6:33 PM

This one is one for both parties to fight for and against. Freedom favoring folks will defend the freedom to maintain legal habits, while fiscally conservative people that enjoy wielding power over others will say they do not want to support habits with THEIR money, and to heck with the rights of others, when they in fact require public aid to survive. I think the segregation of smokers would be a token show of respect for the freedoms of smokers and others to be free from smoke. I'm betting those that wish to impose their will upon others will win out. Let me see if I can paraphrase them; USA, USA, God bless America, support our troops by buying a plastic ribbon from China, USA, Freedom isn't free, USA, do as we tell you, and enjoy your freedoms we ALLOW you.

whatsyurbeef said on January 20, 2010 at 6:29 PM

Price for pack of cigarettes on average 6.00 per pack, 2 pack a day smoker spends 12.00 a day, time 30 days a month equals 360.00 bucks per mo. give or take. If they can afford that then maybe they should move where the government won't tell them not to smoke or subsidize their rent.