Housing authority to ban smoking
Residents of properties owned by the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority will not be allowed to smoke inside the buildings starting January 1, 2011. A survey of property residents showed 70 percent supported the decision. Enlarge video
On a unanimous vote Monday night, the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority passed a smoking ban for all of its properties. The ban will go into effect Jan. 1, 2011.
The four-member panel began considering the ban in late 2009, shortly after a fire that was caused by smoking did $40,000 damage to Babcock Place, one of its properties. The same building sustained $250,000 damage during a fire nine years earlier, also because of smoking.
Late last year, the housing authority formed a committee to investigate ways to help its tenants stop smoking, while it also polled residents. The housing authority asked people what they thought about the possibility of a smoking ban. Housing authority Executive Director Barbara Huppee said 70 percent of residents said they would support a smoking ban. Huppee said that approximately 30 percent of tenants are smokers.
Huppee said the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a directive last year to the 3,200 housing authorities throughout the United States, urging them to enact smoking bans at their properties.
Huppee said Lawrence is now the 167th housing authority to adopt a smoking ban, and only the second in Kansas. She wasn’t sure which other Kansas housing authority had approved a ban.
The local housing authority provides subsidized housing to elderly and low-income people. It owns apartments that include Edgewood Homes, 1600 Haskell Ave.; Babcock Place, 1700 Mass.; Peterson Acres I and II, 2930 Peterson Road; Clinton Place, 2125 Clinton Parkway; and various individual sites scattered across the city. In total, the buildings provide 429 units.
One resident attended the Monday night meeting. Pat Benabe, who has been a housing authority tenant for the past six years, described the ban as “ludicrous.” She said the smoking ban would be difficult for older residents who will have to leave their apartment to light up. “For the elderly population, cigarettes have been a part of their life; it’s almost automatic,” she said.
Benabe added that she does not believe the ban will lead to people quitting the habit. “I don’t think people are going to stop smoking because of a ban; they’re going to stop smoking by choice,” she said.
Huppee said she expects that six months notice will be adequate time for people to make any changes to accommodate the smoking ban. A “smoking hut” will be added to Clinton Place for smoking tenants. The other apartment buildings are already equipped with outdoor shelter areas for smokers.
The housing authority expects to iron out issues regarding enforcement and punishment between now and when the ban goes into effect.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
I know someone who is going to be mad.
tomatogrower (anonymous) replies…
Then they can move.
julz (anonymous) says…
This article did not address the penalties. I'm interested to hear what those would be.
Thinking_Out_Loud (anonymous) replies…
I'm not.
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
So instead of smoking inside, they will smoke outside, TRASH!
emaw (anonymous) says…
Good!!! Maybe the $30 or so they spend on smokes oer week can go to something more productive should they choose to quit. But I doubt it.
JustNoticed (anonymous) says…
Wow. I don't care who the landlord is or who is paying the rent subsidy (us, in the form of taxes), it's ridiculous to tell people they can't smoke in their own homes.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Agreed. So now police will be knocking on doors looking for smokers? I suspect this will be one that is hard to enforce.
crazyredneckmomma4 (anonymous) replies…
thank you!!!
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
A disagree; if I'm being forced through my taxes to pay a portion of your rent, you have no business buying cigarettes on what you've got left over!
Go pay 100% of your own rent and the whole smoking issue is then strictly between you and your landlord.
You start paying a percentage of my rent, and yeah...we can talk rules.
I applaud the Housing Authority.
overthemoon (anonymous) replies…
Hold your breath. I actually agree with you on this one! Smoking is a terrific financial burden for anyone on a limited budget. I know. I'm a smoker and trying and trying to cut back and quit. It is a dangerous luxury...pushed by drug lords like Phillip Morris.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
GASP!!
fan4kufootball (anonymous) replies…
Ditto mr_right_wing. If you can't afford to pay 100% of your own rent in the private market then you cannot afford to buy cigarettes!
kusp8 (anonymous) replies…
Holy schnikes!!! I'm also agreeing with you. It seems like a pretty common sense thing, ESPEcially if you're an elderly citizen that has problems leaving their apartment. If you can't leave your apartment to smoke, then you probably have an even larger reason to not be smoking in the first place.
9070811 (anonymous) replies…
If there is a landlord or a rent subsidy then the tenants aren't living in their own homes! Just like a hotel.
emaw (anonymous) replies…
why is it ridiculous? Is it maybe because they don't own the homes? Or maybe it is because of the 2 fires in the last 9 years caused by irresponsible smoking? You tell me.
parrothead8 (anonymous) replies…
I fully support people doing what they please in their own homes, bu in this case that does not apply. These are not their own homes. These are buildings owned by someone else they are paying a fee to live in. As long as the owner maintains the buildings, the owner has every right to set ground rules for what goes on in said buildings.
Akreed (anonymous) replies…
It's not their home.
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
But, JN, it is not their home.
rando1965 (anonymous) replies…
weather you own or rent it is your home.if you are a landlord you have a pet deposit well then have a smoking deposit.
noun
1.the place where a person (or family) lives; one's dwelling place; specif.,
a.the house, apartment, etc. where one lives or is living temporarily; living quarters
b.the region, city, state, etc. where one lives
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
Rando - The smoking deposit would have to be at least $250,000. Do you think anyone on subsidised housing could afford that?
From the article: "The same building sustained $250,000 damage"
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
Enforcement and Punishment. Wouldnt part of the punishment be for the smokers who are smoking outside to clean up their mess? Or will ms. huppee, say they cannot smoke outside? what about in their car in the parking lot of the housing complex?
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
Just another way for B.Huppee to stick her nose in everyone's business.
skinny (Richard Johnson) says…
When you live in someone elses home you follow their rules. Prertty simple. If you don't like it move!!
PapaB (anonymous) says…
Last time I checked, pets can't burn your house down. It's not right to compare the two.
hipper_than_hip (anonymous) replies…
Wrong. My dads neighbor had a trained monkey who could smoke cigarettes. One day the house burned down while no one was home, and the fire started in the room where they kept the monkey. The neighbor admitted in private that he had left a lighter in the monkeys room. They never told the insurance company about the monkey, they collected their money, and moved away. True story.
kusp8 (anonymous) replies…
Wrong. My fire breathing dragon will burn your house down in a second! ;)
iamtired (anonymous) replies…
Double wrong on hipper and kusp8. The City does not exempt monkeys or fire breathing dragons from the prohibition to own animals.
http://www.lawrenceks.org/city_code/s...
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
I have never heard not a smoking deposit nor is there any reference in the Kansas Landlord Tenant Act to such, but a deposit & pet deposit are valid if within the terms of the Kansas Landlord Tenant Act. Deposit Guidelines are as follows.- 1 &1/2 months rent for furnished or partially furnished unit, 1 months rent for a unfurnished unit and 1/2 months rent for pets. Also the terms of any lease may only be changed at periodic rent times. That means that if a person is in a lease renewable yearly then the terms cannot change before that time. Notice given however is valid it just may vary from tenant to tenant when it becomes enforceable. I doubt most in these tenants will fight it however because they may risk losing thier unit..
anitliars (anonymous) says…
Like it or not, smoking causes problems not just for the smoker but for those around them and for property they inhabit. This is subsidized housing too - meaning that tax dollars are involved in paying the rent/costs. If a subsidized tenant causes increased damage to a property (think cleaning bill alone to get the tar and smell out of the property), that cost is initially born by the owner of the property who passes it along to others (in this case the tax payers). Many home owners who smoke (or who have friends/family that smoke) require it to be done outside, to avoid the health and property damage it does. Why should not a tenant of a subsidized property not follow the same rules a lot of people do? Until or unless they can own/pay for their own homes, they don't get to do whatever they want in someone else's property on someone else's dime!
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
I'm not a smoker...it's disgusting and vile.
I am willing to bet there are plenty of folks out there who work hard and pay their own rent or house payment and they've had to seriously cut back on cigarettes for their budgets sake.
Pay your own rent or quit smoking and shut up already.
Go smoke my turnip,
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
Gee....you've made me reconsider.
Smoke away at taxpayer expense!!
(NOT!!)
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
when the LDCHA mailed their 422 surveys last year to get resident input on the ban, only 177 households mailed their surveys back. Even then, the survey results are so botched that the whole thing smacks of fraud. And should the day ever come where the "powers that be" are honest, law-abiding citizens then they may have my loyalty to their demands.
fan4kufootball (anonymous) replies…
Could it be that most could not even read the survey....
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
The LDCHA also operates the Section 8 program - another farce of theirs. Care to say anything on that ArtichokeHeart?
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
ms. huppee, say they cannot smoke outside? what about in their car in the parking lot of the housing complex?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Huppee, being the incompetent and negligent executive director that she is, has no authority.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
If I had my way (fortunate for you I don't) you would be ineligible for medicaid or medicare as a smoker as well.
fan4kufootball (anonymous) replies…
Okay - your reading my mind today mr_right_wing!
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
Alright....this is just becoming kinda scary now......
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
Hey there Indus. can you tell us how many LDCHA employees smoke on the premises? Has th LDCHA required thier employees to participate in a smoking cessation program for the health and well being of the tenants?
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
When you live in someone elses home you follow their rules.
---------------------------------------
Nobody lives in Ms. Huppee's home, stupid.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Off-hand artichoke, 7. Two of the heaviest chainsmokers also smoke outside of and around tenant's apartments. No LDCHA employees are required to quit their habit or not smoke in the presence of any tenants.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
Remember when you point that finger; there are three of them pointing right back at you!
So....pointing with one hand, draggin' off the ciggie with the other??
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Drop dead wing freak
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
That's more like it.....all these people agreeing with me was making me uncomfortable!!
As far as your comment though; I don't smoke, so you'll most likely be the one to "drop dead" first.
.....and I think you are seriously losing your argument, do you feel the waters rising on your sinking ship?
bluedawg79 (anonymous) says…
Why is this such a discussion? They are a tenant. They do not own the building they reside in, so yes the landlord does have every right to determine such rules. It IS no different than allowing grills, pets, etc. The landlord is protecting their property from potential damage because they own that building. If you don't like the rules, choose another place to live.
9070811 (anonymous) replies…
100% agreed.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
I think we used to call that 'common sense'....??
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
I think smoking should be banned in Section 8 housing as well. How does someone living off the government teat afford to buy smokes?
fan4kufootball (anonymous) replies…
Most of them have some sort of income but not enough according to the government so the government pays for the rent and groceries and leaves them with more disposable income than most - therefore they can afford the smokes - retarded isn't it?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
What bluedawg said. Rental owners (and restaurant owners) should be able to set their own rules regarding smoking, which people then have to obey, or choose to live (go) somewhere else.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Why is it even an issue since people have been smoking since the Iron Age, and probably even before? Tenants at Edgewood, at least, have been smoking there for over 30 years. So now, out of the clear blue sky, the LDCHA wants to protect "their" property? It isn't even theirs. And at any rate, they have property insurance now.
bluedawg79 (anonymous) replies…
And years ago doctors endorsed smoking, and now they don't. Funny how we learned over the years it was actually killing us. Not necesarily the act of smoking but the toxins placed in the products. Maybe instead of complaining about the smoking bans smokers should tell the tobacco industry to stop lacing their products with toxins and killing themselves and us. No, it would be easier to complain on here.
none2 (anonymous) replies…
It is obvious that this is a good move given responses such as yours. If you are so upset about not being able to continue your drug addiction in public subsidized housing that you have to rant and rave, then you are the one who definitely has a problem.
Actually only the Americas originally had tobacco plants. So the vast majority of peoples of the world during the Iron Age did not smoke.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
You just don't get it do you? You seriously haven't got a clue. Yeah; it isn't "theirs" it's OURS, all of us taxpayers involuntarily help pay your rent; while at the same time have to pay all of our own rents and groceries and gas and utilities. We (especially I) resent that while we're helping to pay your rent, you are running out with your extra money (that you only have because we help pay your rent) to buy cigarettes. You should be using that money that you are selfishly using on cigarettes to pay more of your own rent. It's not about your 'rights' it's about you being irresponsible with money and the rest of us having to help you out because of that.
I'd also suggest anyone living in government housing has no business getting any porn magazines; but messing with the U.S. mail is a little more complicated. People in public housing shouldn't have 'platinum' (or higher) cable packages as well.
I don't think government housing was originally designed to be a final destination for most folks. For most people it really should only be viewed as temporary, and you really should be trying to work your way out of there. (...and I meant 'work' literally..) Once you are up and out of government-assisted housing, and you're paying all of your own rent, smoke as much as you'd like!
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Low-income and elderly folks can't just move, that's why. Lawrence rent is over the moon. But it does beg the question as to why the elderly and the poor are lured into this housing trap in the first place? No one asked to be here.
jonas_opines (anonymous) replies…
"Low-income and elderly folks can't just move, that's why."
Maybe the smokers could if they weren't buying their cigarettes? Cigs are getting pretty damned expensive.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
If anybody really wants to clean anything, clean the fraud and corruption out of the LDCHA. Or go one better, clean it out of this town.
CU_Buff_In_Larryville (anonymous) says…
This is easy- Do not smoke in this home- If you do you will be fined, if you continue to smoke. You will need to find a new place to live. Sounds like a good deal to me.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Any of you gutless wonders up to that task? Wing freak? Beyond Reason? Opines?
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
I give up....
Yep, you are the helpless pitiful victim here.
It's is everyone else's' fault, but absolutely not yours. Poor you.
--sigh--
--dismissive head nod---
--eye roll--
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Well Jonas, sounds like nobody is able to do nothin' ....and there is no law that bans a legal product. Simply get over it.
artichokeheart (anonymous) replies…
Not exactly sure on this one Indus. There is a city ordinance on public buildings & smoking. The City of Lawrence did merge with the LDCHA at some point. This issue may require a little more research.
jonas_opines (anonymous) replies…
People are able to do all sorts of things, and there are laws that restrict a great many legal products. I've able to familiarize myself with many of them during my 18 years as a smoker and a drinker.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
He Indus I'm not sure the average person posting here or even in the community is aware of "the corruption" you are refering to. You may want to explain in more detail.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
JW covers up crime, too.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
JW just erases it, choke. Covers it up, too
artichokeheart (anonymous) replies…
I think that is covered under the terms of use policy for the LJW. We have to play by the rules even if others do not.
wmathews (Whitney Mathews) replies…
Hi Indus,
As I explained in the message I sent you, you need to provide evidence to support the posts about Milton Scott. If you don't have evidence, they will be removed as they violate the Terms of Service, specifically the part that says any content you post "is not libelous or defamatory, does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party."
Should you continue to post about Milton Scott without providing evidence to your claims, you will be banned. Please feel free to email me wmathews@ljworld.com if these terms are unclear.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
What about George W...it's his fault too!
Oops...I already gave up. Sorry for the slip-up.
(I can't stand to see George left out!)
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
Please explain.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
I'm gonna go smoke.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
That's it - go lean on a crutch instead of doing something meaningful!
Wouldn't have expected anything more from you.
redmorgan (anonymous) says…
I agree with the ban. If I owned a rental property, I would not want a tenant smoking in my property. The smell is horrible and hard to get rid of. Smoking also leaves a chemical residue...eww. When you own your own home, then you get to choose to foul it up with your nasty smoking.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
I'm not trying to get you mad Indus but it might work a little better to give some facts and examples to support your statements insteadmof telling other people to drop dead.
jonas_opines (anonymous) replies…
I'm getting the feeling that's not how Indus rolls.
brujablanco (anonymous) replies…
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.
gsxr600 (anonymous) says…
What about hookah?
pace (anonymous) says…
I have always thought Lawrence should go dry. No booze in the city limits.
Eride (anonymous) says…
More crying from the welfare crowd. Big surprise.
Waaa, I get all my food, housing and medical costs paid for by the rest of society, Waaa, I can't smoke in my rental that is paid for by other peoples tax money, Waaa.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
Amen!
CHKNLTL (anonymous) says…
My apartment complex lease states you must smoke outside. But everybody has a door to the outside for their own compartment. This means all my neighbors enjoy their balcony deck like a chimney and I can't sit outside for all the Marlboro red smoke rolling across the building.
The_Big_B (anonymous) says…
Want to smoke in your own home? Get your OWN home.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Things don't always go exactly how I want them to. We should make a law to fix that.
absolutelyridiculous (anonymous) says…
Maybe they can put that $30-$40+ per week toward their freaking rent! So glad I subsidize bad habits....NOT!!!!!
Living in city owned apartment complexes...no smoking! Great idea. The city (we the working, taxpaying citizens) don't need to liability.
Atlas is now shrugging.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
I looked at the city code on this and it states, any building that the general public is welcome to enter. The city in some form assists in funding the LDCHA. Also the Department of Housing & Urban Development oversees operations for the Federal Government who also funds programs at the State and County levels. Pretty much every level of government contributes to public housing sites from funds that are distributed from federal monies. There seems to be no city code that states anything about rental properties, so it appears that the indivdual owers or property management has the final say in if smoking is permitted or not. For public housing since so many funding sources are involved I am not sure from the information I have read exactly who has the last word on this one. Because we do not know who really owns the property or who owns the larger share.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
ahh- a victory against an ugly habit. now maybe these people can focus on looking better...
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Perhaps if you are so poor that you are living in government housing ciggies are not a wise buy for you.
whatadrag (anonymous) replies…
But the government pays for my ciggies
9070811 (anonymous) says…
A landlord or housing authority absolutely has the right to protect and make rules for the properties that they own. It is ludicrous to say that they should have the right to smoke in a home they don't own. Properties are investments for those who own them.
BABBOY (anonymous) says…
Tough call. I say a landlord can put a no smoking limitation on the use of their property. But, the issue is then whether the housing authority is a landlord. I say they are paying the bills and assuming liability so yeah they can tell them not smoking. I assume they also say no drug use.
Jonas said something about Restaurants. As a young manN. I got into fights with smokers in bars who were disrespectful about the way they smoked. So public smoking bans were caused by smokers themselves and their own disrespect.
srj (anonymous) says…
If you accept money from the government, they control you, no matter if it's drug screens for welfare money, not smoking if federal owned housing, or Citibank and AIG.
HootyWho (anonymous) says…
I live in section 8 housing,,,
i'm also a former smoker,,,quit several years ago,,,
i'm just wondering what will be banned next?
and i pay to live in this housing,,,therefore its mine, and i will do what i please inside that dwelling,,,
i'm grateful for the help with my housing, and that is all the help i do get,,,NO welfare of any kind,,i did that with 2 kids, making less than 10 bucks an hour,,,so back up and don't run your mouth when you don't know where the other person has been
emaw (anonymous) replies…
ummm no, it is not yours. If you rent a hotel and it is a nonsmoking hotel, do you have the right to smoke in it? Didn't think so. Just because you pay rent doesn't make you the owner of the property. Get a clue. A landlord sets the rules. If you want to make your own, then buy your own place. Congrats on raising 2 kids but that doesn't entitle you to anything.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
As I explained in the message I sent you, you need to provide evidence to support the posts about Milton Scott. If you don't have evidence, they will be removed as they violate the Terms of Service, specifically the part that says any content you post "is not libelous or defamatory, does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not aware of any message you sent to me, but I will re-check my e-mail later. The original file that proves Milton Scott's activities has been removed from my home as well as housing authority property in case anything happens to me. I can deliver a copy to you, but I must retrieve the original first.
brujablanco (anonymous) replies…
Deja vu here. I vaguely recall a couple of posters in the past making accusations such as this.
"The dog bit noone"
"Your Internet life is about to change drastically in the near future"
Methinks someone has been taking the MSL course on how to make a fool of yourself whilst pretending to be a lawyer. bwahahahahahahaha
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
And actually, since I filed my complaint against Milton Scott, even more events have occurred that support me. Just an FYI.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
I agree with the ban. If I owned a rental property, I would not want a tenant smoking in my property. The smell is horrible and hard to get rid of. Smoking also leaves a chemical residue...eww. When you own your own home, then you get to choose to foul it up with your nasty smoking.
------------------------------------------------
I reckon the drunk who comes home and barfs all over the place isn't a problem?
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Housing authority Executive Director Barbara Huppee said 70 percent of residents said they would support a smoking ban.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Barbara Huppee says this, she's talking about the 70% of the 42% of the survey responses, not even half. But without knowing that, the reader would falsey assume that a whopping majority of housing tenants supported the ban.
Could she not have just been truthful?
artichokeheart (anonymous) replies…
Most statistics are marginal anyway. This would be a targeted group too (those on public housing) so the return rate is usually less than 50%.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Anti-smoking hysteria hits small suburban townhouse.
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/jonas...
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Waaa, I get all my food, housing and medical costs paid for by the rest of society, Waaa, I can't smoke in my rental that is paid for by other peoples tax money, Waaa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I guess if society is tired then maybe society will want to stop creating the disabled. Cause I'm not wailin' like a baby. You are.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
I assume they also say no drug use.
----------------------------------------------------------
No, actually they don't. Not one pot-smoking household will be required to smoke outside. They're safe.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Think about it, people. When we physically and often also emotionally wreck our children so that they must be provided a certain extent of care for the rest of their lives, guess what, we get to pay for it, all of us.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Bert Nash isn't complaining! Medicaid pays them BIG bucks to babysit what society throws away. What does a counselor get paid nowadays choke? $140.00 per 50 minutes?
artichokeheart (anonymous) replies…
Not sure on that one but can check tomorrow for exact amounts ( I assume you are talking about Bert Nash). I think percribing doctors are in the 170.00-190.00 range (30 minute) and MSW get around 160.00-170.00(50 min.). They also have many groups too & and case management services140.00-150.00 (60 min). Of course you have to consider the kind of insurance someone has too. Cobra pays 50%, Medicaid pays 100%, (2.00-3.00 copay) private insurance can pay up to 85% after meeting deductable(20.00-25.00 copay). Bert Nash also offers a sliding fee scale for those who are uninsured and not covered by medicaid too. I think those who are completely indigent( i.e homeless) get free servicees and the state covers that through other funding of various forms. I do know the major drug companies provide medication for those who are not covered in any other way. Eli Lily is one of them.There is a application process and medications are shipped via mail to the provider.
ljreader (anonymous) says…
But- if too many people quit smoling- who will pay for the health care of the poor little illegal alien children??
The tax tacked on to cigs pays for that. (schips) Without this revenue,all the nonsmokers will have to pony up. Because, you know, all of us, including smokers, make over 250 grand a yr- Because, you know, Dear Leader promised us no new taxes unless we're rich. Because, you know, the rich are evil and we hate them.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
I still think it is an intrusion on people's rights. Smoking isn't illegal, it is just stupid. Don't do it around others who choose to not breath in your smoke, but in your residence? Yes, in a perfect world only those who are financially secure would have vices like smoking and drinking, but in the real world many have these vices. I find it amazing how quickly people are willing to give up other people's rights.
However, I agree with each and every one of you who say that if you are living off other people's money you should do everything imaginable to support yourself, including quitting smoking. That would, indeed, be the solution in a perfect world. Now, even disabled vets living in government housing will be told they can't smoke in their own home. That is just wrong.
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) replies…
Bea - I understand where you are coming from, but smokers are not a protected class, and smoking has never been a fundamental right. As long as smoking is regulated based on its relation to public health, it will remain so.
To emaw - the same applies to your "right" not to have to breathe someone else's smoke in a place where smoking is allowed.
emaw (anonymous) says…
What happened to the idea that your rights end where mine begin? I believe it is the right of the next tenant in these apartments to have a dwelling that doesn't wreak of cig smoke. Also, what about the rights of all the neighbors who lost property or had to find temporary housing while the repairs were done by the irresponsible smokers who caused the two fires in the last 9 years. Do these people not have rights? I occasionally smoke but I am considerate of other people and I go outside and away from other people. I do not believe that my bad habit should be catered to by everyone else as it is ME that choses to smoke.
Kampinqueen (anonymous) says…
I live in a scatterd site through the housing authority and I quit smoking on my own and my choice, 3 yrs ago and am glad I did for myself and my kids but I don't make anymore money than I did then. And do not receive any other benifits from the government like food stamps or cash assistance at all. My income is below poverty level due to non payment of child support and only means of support is my job...so don't sit there and judge people on housing when we try just as hard if not harder to keep food on the table and utilities paid....I refuse to allow people to just blaintantly put people down cause they need housing!!!!!
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
But Barbara Huppee will allow smoking outside on the grounds and pay a staff employee to clean up after the smokers. How much will that add to the Housing Authority expenses?
Huppee doesn't care , she has created quite a czar position. With her and hubby at KU, there are TWO Yes votes for local school bond issues, sales tax issues, and anything to do with more spending by the city.
Private industry and privately employed persons are out numbered in Lawrence.
Just curious if Kamingqueen would volunteer, which translates to work without pay!) at the public housing project to clean up butts they smokers will leave outside?
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
I don't know, but tonight I'm going to read up on Innumerable rights in the Constitution. Because our individual rights laid at the heart of the Constitution being ratified in the first place.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Correction....I mean Enumerated Rights.
g_rock (anonymous) says…
Wait. So we are encouraging folks to step outside the home and smoke? Great idea. Leave little Billy in his crib and little Angel in front of the TV. Not sure if that is a better idea than smoking in the house in front of them?
OK I know that all housing authority tenants are not single mothers that smoke. But that was my first thought.
And honestly, I'm not sure where I would come down on this issue. I'm a former smoker. And I've also lived next to a 2 pack a day smoker with their smoke wafting into my apartment as a non smoker. I can see both sides. I just worry about the implications of folks being outside their front doors all the time. Maybe it will cut down on crime? Who knows.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
Indus did you miss this?
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jun...
jackbinkelman (anonymous) says…
While this seems like a "ludicrous" intrusion smoking bans are Needed and will only continue to expand in scope [read the label, "cigarette smoking causes cancer"]. I also think adults who smoke in cars with children with the windows rolled up should be arrested.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
Absolutely! If exposing your child to known carcinogens is not child abuse, I don't know what is.
independant1 (anonymous) says…
A “smoking hut”
If we only had a smoking park around the smoking hut then things would really be swell.
and a pool of 5-15 minute baby sitters to draw from
stly999999 (anonymous) says…
You know I have a right to take a dump or have sex with my wife, but not when I am sitting in public, so why make the insane argument that smoking in publice is somebody's right??? Just because something is legal to do, does not make it a right to do wherever and whenever you want.
stly999999 (anonymous) says…
You know I have a right to take a dump or have sex with my wife, but not when I am sitting in public, so why make the insane argument that smoking in publice is somebody's right??? Just because something is legal to do, does not make it a right to do wherever and whenever you want.
independant1 (anonymous) says…
That's why a smoking park with a hut would really be swell.
A place for everything and everything in it's place:)
A place to take a dump? Port a potty huts. And a pool of 5-15 minute babysitters to draw from then things would really be swell!
And a place to have sex. A sex hut (bedroom?). And a pool of 5-45 minute babysitters to draw from then things would really be swell!
Do you think I'm being fair to the right to take a dump? Could expand that to 5-45 minute pool of babysitters to draw from for the anal retentive.