70° Thunderstorm Heavy Rain Fog/Mist and Windy
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
What is it. Don't people have anything else to do. This question is all about control of someones life. You need to get a life and stop trying to run someone elses. For all you non smokers whether you quit or never did hop on another band wagon. This is low income persons with not much in life, but trying to survive this mixed-up world that people like you have created.
Drinking that rot gut boos will kill you just as fast. Get a life You can't live you own, so how do you think you can live someone elses. I am offended by this question.
Then you need not ask for hand outs!!
hells ya! skinny's point is exactly THE point!
I don't think everyone ask for 'handouts'. I agree there are the few who make it look bad for the majority who want to earn their life. With the way the ecomony is and businesses profiling people asking for jobs, cost of living increase, difficult to buy a car, house or rent one. The younger generation have not been taught how to budget financially, making it even more difficult to maintain a lifestyle. People getting older, making it more difficult to land jobs and maintaining a home. I don't think most people want to go on welfare and have their lives controlled, sometimes there is just no choice. The problem is once you get there it is even more difficult to get out of the system. If the Gov't allows people to become completely destitute there would be chaos in the streets. People who can afford a lifestyle will just complain, then what do they do with the women, children and men who have no place to go, nothing to eat and begging - kill them? put them in prison or work camp? The only other solutions is to help them maintain somewhat of a lifestyle to keep them off the streets and out of food lines. You need to rethink that statement you just made. Its not all about you.
You need to learn the difference between a "hand out" and a "hand up".
i don't think anyone's asking for handouts. it's not like they said "hey, i give up. you pay for my housing now?" they need it, for any number of reasons. i hope i never need that kind of help again, but i was fortunate enough to have my mom nearby, and then meet my boyfriend (who, by the way, has brought me back to life. if any of you ever meet him, his name is brian richling, and he's why i no longer believe no one cares). come on, where's your compassion, skinny?
If it prevents ANY children from being exposed to 2nd hand smoke, I am ALL FOR it!!!
If someone is on public assistance, that assistance should not be subsidizing an expensive drug habit. Besides, it reduces the damage done to the apartments by the residents and greatly reduces the risk of fire.
Get out of my life! Live yours NOT mine.
People will get out of your life, once you get out of housing paid by their taxes. Once you learn HOW to live your life, people will let you "live yours", but while your in someone elses home, you sure as hell better respect their property. Making it permanently smell like as$ isn't exactly respectful.
I am completely against government control of citizens' lives. In fact, I flatly refused to give any personal information to the Census Bureau because of my distrust of the government. I'm not going to volunteer any information that will violate my privacy. So when it comes to what citizens do in their own homes, I believe the government should have absolutely no say. If people want to smoke tobacco or something else, it's their business - not the government's.
But here's the thing: these homes belong to the government. And when you live in a government house, you play by the government rules. By living there, you violate you So just as I would have the right to tell people not to smoke in my home, the government has the right to tell people not to smoke in it's homes.
And here's another thing: if I own a business, and I want my patrons to be able to smoke there, I should be able to allow them that liberty. Yes, I know people think the other patrons have the right now to breathe smoke and all. But look, they can leave if they don't want to be in a smokey environment.
Well I disagree with not filling out the Census form. You'll regret it one day. As a person who researches geneology this information is vital to you forthcoming relatives. It is so frustrating sometimes when you can't find an ancester on the census only to discover they weren't there to be included for whatever reason and could have been. Also the Govn't doesn't release the census for 99 years so you're dead when it comes out. The form is not that personal - it just asked very general questions and only about 7 if any. I don't trust our government officials, but I do believe in our democracy. And if you know the Constitution you'll realize that it is the people's fault they gave up their rights to the Gov't officials because we are the people by the people. We are the ones who make the difference in our democracy not Govn't officials. They are only there to represent us and our needs. We are the ones on elect them and we are the ones who should seek them out when we disagree instead of just complaining about it. We also have a choice not to elect them into office if they don't live up to our expectations. Grant it we have to fight for change the hard way but its there for us to have, we just have to takes the chance that is our right. Too many people just sit on their cans and complain then wonder why there is no change. Well DUH!! What really grips me are those who complain and never voted. If you don't vote than SHUT-UP until you decide to take a stand for the people, by the people. If you want change then go something about it instead of complaining and letting someone else do the work for you. READ YOUR CONSTITUTION. It is still a binding document for the rules in this country.
*By living there you violate your own privacy.
People on oxygen should NOT smoke. And that was the cause of the last Babcock fire! After the smoke etc. was under control with water, those living on the floors below the cause, had water in their apartments with damage to their furniture, so some had to be moved to other housing! So is this fair to others that some be allowed to smoke, and not safely? I think not! Of course the person that caused it was illegally smoking in the first place, medically that is! But why should all the others in the complex have to suffer for one persons stupidity? BAnn Smoking inside city housing!
I smell pinko Commies in the air.
I cannot smoke in my rented apartment, so WHY THE HELL do you think YOU can smoke in welfare housing?! It's for the same reason, the smell of smoke cannot be cleaned out, so in a year when someone else has to live in that dwelling they'll have to smell your nasty as$ smoke. Would you smoke in a leased car!?! HELL NO! If you want to live how YOU want, BUY your own sh!t!
That is what repainting the apartment is for as well as cleaning it before a new tenant moves in. Its been done for years. I'm sure I've moved into apartments where tenants before me smoked and I never smelled smoke. But then again that was in another state whereas Lawrence doesn't require a unit be repainted and carpeted completely before a new tenant moves in.
No, I don't think it is okay for people to buy, sell, or use heroin. But that isn't the question. The question is whether the government has the right to prevent people from using it. And the answer to that question is no.
How much tin foil do I use in a year? I don't know. How much douche do you use in a year?
I am in favor of the smoking ban in public places because there is documented proof that cities that have smoking ban show a marked decreases in the number of heart attacks and smoking releated illnesses. Thus, there is a legitmate reason for the government to impose such restrictions.
However, I am against a ban on smoking in public housing. First of all, it is paternalistic and intrusive. Without a legitimate reason to do so, the government does not have the right tell an individual what one can do in one's own home if said activity is legal. Smoking is legal. Not everyone in public housing has children and even if they did, they are in the custody of their parents and even though smoking around children is not the best thing, the state still does not have the right to impose or intrude on the parent's right to smoke around said child. The state does not even tell foster parents that, and the state is the de facto parent, so what gives the state the right to tell people with custody of their children, they can not smoke around them. It is a nasty habit but it does not constitute child abuse.
Secondly, just because a person smokes, or is in need of public housing, it does not mean that the person is irresponsible. There are numerous reasons why a person might need public housing. Most people in public housing are on a fixed income. Many are senior citizens. I lived in Edgewood for a few years when my son was young and I was going to college. It was safer and cleaner than Stouffer House. I knew quite a few parents, who lived there, while going to college. Some weren't but still needed a safe, decent place for them and their children. While I lived in Edgewood, there was not one fire. After I moved out, the only fire I know of was caused by construction workers not by irresponsible tenants.
The Housing Authority, like all property owners, have a right to impose rules that maintain the structure of their property. However, I do not feel that the state has enough of a legitimate interest and that that interest does not trump an individual's right to privacy in their own home.
Yeah, we should probably ban stoves and heaters too. Better cut out with the electricity too. That stuff is notorious for causing fires.
I hate to point this out, because pretty people like myself rarely get involved in 'ugly' discussions, but you stated: "the government does not have the right tell an individual what one can do in one's own home"
The discussion involves people staying in government-funded (that's your taxes and mine) houses and whether or not they are allowed to smoke in them. So the case is that the government does have the right to tell an individual what one can do inside the government's house provided to said individual.
now, I am putting on my cucumber shades....I'll be back
This is PUBLIC, not private, housing. Hopefully those in residence will experience better times in the future and be able to move from assisted housing. At that time, another family will be moving in and YOU CANNOT GET RID OF THAT SMOKE SMELL.
One of my children purchased a large family home last year. It was owned by an 80-something year old woman who "smoked only in the garage".
Every product, every professional (heat vent cleaner) new carpet, new paint etc etc cannot remove that smell. Something called the Room Shocker was miraculous...but not a total solution. There is nothing else - that is known to us - to be done.
So, I agree about the no smoking.
If it protects children and future residents, I vote no also.
Not about control, but about CONSIDERATION for others.
Here goes "government" again. Because we provide housing we will preclude you from smoking. How about because we provide medical care we will preclude you from drinking or overeating? This is a slippery slope.
Just how much "housing" am I paying for in my taxes? I know we also subsidize rent. Do these people have to shovel snow and or pay for sidewalks or water usage or do we (the taxpayers) pick up the whole tab???
The LHA provides a service within our community to individuals who have fallen on hard times -- whether by choice or circumstance is beside the point. They are the property owner and therefore can make the rules. And, yes, it is paternalistic, but life's a trade-off. If you choose to live in public housing, you've given up a small piece of your personal freedom. The LHA has a right to provide smoke-free housing, just as smoker's have a right to seek their own housing -- either purchase their own or rent from a landlord who allows it.
However, I do not agree with your premise. Those who have fallen on hard times because of factors beyond their control - great - for a time. Those who have been stupid - at the least they reimburse us when they recover or we throw them out. Decisions have consequences - unless there are consequences, no learning occurs.
Why should we make it harder on those who have fallen on hard time through no fault of their own? Their actions would not contaminate the housing if they are only there until they recover - or are we putting them up forever and your concern is, therefore, legitimate??
I am getting increasingly tired of giving ever more money to people who apparently are not attempting to better themselves. How about six months and you are out - no problem with smoke over such a short time. That is help. Anything else is enablement.
You seem to be unaware of how the LHA works, and who is in need of such services. To even qualify for help you need to wait for at least 2 years from when you apply. Many people that get help from the housing authority aren't people that have fallen on hard times. Many are disabled and unable to work, and get very little money from social security to make it by on. The subsidized rent makes it so they have more money for things they might need that aren't covered by insurance, such as any over the counter medicines for example, or new socks and underwear and other things people take for granted. Cigarettes may be a wasteful way to spend money, but banning smoking in LHA housing isn't going to stop people from smoking, it will just make it against the rules to do so inside the person's home.
Thank you. I apparently mis-read aletheia (anonymous) comment. As I wrote, I have no problem with people who can not through no fault of their own move on. I consider it a social obligation to help them. I still consider it an intrusion to treat them differently from the rest of us because we do
Blackfox1945 well said. I am offended as well. I grew up in a housing project and I turned out just fine. I don't think controlling someones life because they are less fortunate is right! It violates human rights! Get a life!
If you cannot afford to pay for rent somewhere other than public housing then you cannot afford to by cigarettes!!!!!
So I guess cooking stinky foods needs to be banned as well. Ever try to get the smell of garlic, onions, and certain kinds of fish out of a house?
I'm all in favor of not allowing smoking in places where the public is allowed to attend and where people are working. Banning smoking in private residences, even those in subsidized housing, is intrusive on people's private lives. Smoking isn't against the law. Until it is, then this is snooping into people's homes where we shouldn't be snooping.
When you live under someone else’s roof you'll go by their rules. If not, you'll move out! Pretty simple!
Ban it, too many kids that the parents......ban it in cars with children too.
Better yet lets have smoking designated areas. Yeah, smoking parks.
Then things would be swell.
Next thing to ban will be any practice or display of religion in public housing because of the seperation of church and state.
Sure, why not. Ban alcohol too. While we're at it, let's create some state-run grocery stores and force people on assistance to shop there exclusively, that way we can be certain they're not buying junk food, AND all of the profit goes back into state coffers. They could pee in a cup on the way out the door for their drug tests - like a one-stop shop. Think of the job creation. We could have housing police go door to door and search their homes for contraband: cigarettes, alcohol, non-government brand food items, Ipads.
Then we could turn in our neighbors to the police if we smell tobacco smoke.
I dont think the right to be able to smoke where you live should depend on your bank account. If that is the case than no one should be able to smoke in their homes no matter what!!!!!! I dont believe people that go to bars, sit around and do drugs and drink everyday are the major population of this program. It is the ignorance of the public that cause this display of being uneducated. It is embarrassing to the community for this type of response, than dont ask for handouts. It is disgusting that people in the world can think that homeless and less fortunate
people are all the same and are all in the same situation. We all need to learn to be more compassionate and look into each situation and you would know this was not true.
What's so hard about going outside to smoke. Are you that lazy? Forget about "being controlled", how about you think about the next tenants that have to deal with the smoke? What if they're allergic to it? If you don't want to take a few minutes to stand outside to take a smoke break, then don't ask the government for help. Sorry!
I don't care if they smoke or not, but if they're given housing at taxpayer expense then they should definitely be subject to random drug testing.
Are you suggesting that people of lower classes should be treated differently than those of higher classes? You think that somebody with MS or cerebral palsy that is on disability and needs to live in subsidized housing should have their rights violated because they are too poor to pay for better housing? Being low income or unable to pay your bills doesn't automatically make you a junkie, and to assume so is outright bigotry.
Well said - there is way too much profiling in this country in all shapes, sizes, forms, colors and circumstance.
So you think people that are handicapped shouldn't receive assistance? Would you be willing to employ somebody who has such poor motor control they are unable to feed or bathe them self and need assistance with all of those tasks and pay them well enough that they could in turn hire somebody to assist them? Oh, yeah, and then enough pay that they could afford to pay for housing, food, and medical care? I doubt you would. Would you rather see these people on the streets than receiving subsidies for food, housing, and medical care?
I don't think the cigarettes really have anything to do with your attitude either. As I said earlier, making it so people can't smoke in LHA housing isn't going to stop people from smoking, they'll do it outside. I'm in no way suggesting that people should smoke, but until they make it illegal poor people and people with higher income have an equal right to pollute their lungs.
If you are going to make a law/rule, you are going to have to find a way to enforce it and I just think that's going to be really hard. And what's the penalty? We've already established that they have no money. Eviction? Defeats the purpose of public housing. And neighbor narcing on neighbor?? And even though I'm not saying just because it's hard, don't do it but it sounds like it would be difficult to enforce and cause more problems than solve.
How about if Barbara Huppee went to jail for aiding and abetting fraud and theft at the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority?
DId it ever dawn on you that spending money on frivolous habits helps keep people poor & dependent on other's?
Did it ever dawn on you that that's exactly what the housing authority prefers? They call it their job security.
FYI: The HA uses its maintenance department as police and anybody else with the capacity to harass because that's really what all of this is about. They also have video and audio surveillance everywhere.
Good. Everybody shuts the f up now.
You are on this thread a few days after it was new, people have moved on. Has nothing to do with you commenting.
Some of the even more ignorant threads have come back ad nauseum, but people "move on" because that's their attention span; their inability to think long and hard about the destruction of freedom and free will in this country.
Doctor's instructions: Do not spend time outdoors when the weather is extremely hot or extremely cold. Ignorance has got to be the most comfortable spot to be in since there are those who just can't lift their behinds out of it.
Sure. What's the BFG? For all the know it all's....do everyone a favor and take a look at the parking lot, mostly NEW cars. I have ben inside these places, worked in them, not very inviting. A temporary living solution at best. They say no smoke--NO SMOKE.
Several times in the past when I have had the opportunity to leave the LDCHA someone at the LDCHA always talked me out of it. Now that I am no longer able to leave, they want to create conditions that may force me to leave. Backwards? Stupid? Whatever. It is the LDCHA.
I smoke. That's what the f*** I do.
Extend the smoking ban to all rented units in Lawrence, it is for protection of children and property, The commission should be fair, make the rules for all rented properties in Lawrence not just for a unique population. There is no reason not to, if this is a matter of health, property loss, prevention, of fire, all social costs. The commission has decided that only two unrelated people can rent small to large homes in Lawrence, they can tack the none smoking rule to that law. The rule should apply to all renters in the city, not just the ones in housing programs.
Problem with subjugating folks is that not I nor anyone else lives by way of autocracy, thereby we do not exist to serve the State.
Extend the smoking ban to all rented units in Lawrence, it is for protection of children and property
Just don't deprive the drunks of their booze that kills better than anything.
WOW Someone needs to stop drinkin the artichoke-flavored kool aid.
Libel is illegal.
Go smoke another cigarette, it will make you feel better about your life choices...............
And I bet that not one pot-smoking household is going to be bothered by the LDCHA when their Socialist political agenda goes into effect.
Well, not that they were invited...the low IQ's are starting to appear.
WOW Someone needs to stop drinkin the artichoke-flavored kool aid.
Libel is illegal.
To the very poorly educated:
There is no "libel" in the truth. Remember that when you post anything online everyone can see it. You, and only you, destroy your credibility. In other words, you have no credibility. Keep posting! Keep proving me right : )
I suggest you visit this site.
Back away from the koolaid, toots.
They should not only not allow smoking in any rental unit in the city but should extend the ban to all housing units in the city. Then the renters would have the same rights as home owners.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.