[GeneV]

Santa Fe NM will now require residents of public housing not to smoke on the premises. ABQjournal.com: Albuquerque Journal login page There is a growing number of private rentals that are doing the same, but for elderly residents of public housing, there is no alternative.

I did not just add this to the end of the thread on urine tests of welfare recipients, because there are other factors in smoking and housing. In housing for the elderly, safety issues come into play.

Or is it part of the same issue?

[ihasa]

Pain in the ass and a bit intrusive for young smokers. But what about elderly smokers, who have smoked all their life, and can't either give up or stand outside? Seems a kick in the teeth.

[GeneV]

Pain in the ass and a bit intrusive for young smokers. But what about elderly smokers, who have smoked all their life, and can't either give up or stand outside? Seems a kick in the teeth.

That was the focus of the newspaper article.

On the other hand, I have been worked on several cases involving an apartment complexes where an elderly person who uses oxygen smokes in their apartment. Now you have a fire danger to a building full of people who don't move all that quickly. It is tough to prove that the resident is using oxygen at the very same time as the smoking, but it is amazingly common at our high altitudes. I could see how banning smoking could be the easiest way to insure safety for the elderly.

[JohnInIndy]

They don't want you to smoke yet they count on that cash cow to finance medical care. Gotta love it!

[GeneV]

Tobacco taxes don't come near to paying for the medical expenses of elderly smokers. There is no cash cow there.
The medical expenses will be a lot more if the building burns.

[MRRiley]

Gotta wonder about someone who breaths so poorly that he needs oxygen yet still smokes...

I guess the idea is... stoke up on Oxygen, then smoke, then hack and cough while sucking in more Oxygen to keep from passing out.

beyond that, even though I am generally against smoking, I can't see how they can restrict a person's smoking habits in what is for all intents and purposes their own home. Public or not, it is their home...

[JohnInIndy]

Tobacco taxes don't come near to paying for the medical expenses of elderly smokers. There is no cash cow there.
The medical expenses will be a lot more if the building burns.

Well if that's true than why are they funding sChip with tobacco taxes? If it isn't enough to pay for the elderly smokers how are they funding sChip?

The U.S. Senate approved a measure late Thursday to raise tobacco taxes and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip) to cover more uninsured children.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/01/26/daily81.html

[JohnInIndy]

Gotta wonder about someone who breaths so poorly that he needs oxygen yet still smokes...

I guess the idea is... stoke up on Oxygen, then smoke, then hack and cough while sucking in more Oxygen to keep from passing out.

beyond that, even though I am generally against smoking, I can't see how they can restrict a person's smoking habits in what is for all intents and purposes their own home. Public or not, it is their home...

Just more control and liberty to be taken away is all. They know people are to stupid to see it. Well some of you are anyway. You all need to be controlled and regulated. You can't think for yourself. (Not directed at you in particular Mike, it's the editorial "you")

[cardinal43]

Well some of you are anyway. You all need to be controlled and regulated. You can't think for yourself. (Not directed at you in particular Mike, it's the editorial "you")

The "editorial you" also includes you, whether you believe it or not. So, I agree that some of "you" can't think for yourself.

[JohnInIndy]

The "editorial you" also includes you, whether you believe it or not. So, I agree that some of "you" can't think for yourself.

Sometimes it does include me. But not this time. I see full well what they are doing. Wish you would take off the blinders and see also. Maybe you just need to remove the cataracts

[GeneV]

Well if that's true than why are they funding sChip with tobacco taxes? If it isn't enough to pay for the elderly smokers how are they funding sChip?

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/01/26/daily81.html

Elderly housing, medical care and SChip have nothing to do with one another.

[Colbyt]

beyond that, even though I am generally against smoking, I can't see how they can restrict a person's smoking habits in what is for all intents and purposes their own home. Public or not, it is their home...

Speaking as a landlord of 30 years and as a reformed smoker:

Smokers burn your tubs, floors and counters with their butts.
Smokers make the unit stink with the smell of burning paper and tobacco.
Smokers stain your ceilings so badly that a special stain killing coat or two of an expensive primer is required before you can paint.
Smokers are not a more protected subset of society and are not likely to become one.


Speaking as a property owner and as a landlord:
Anything that you do that cost me more than average wear an tear or extra expense, I have a right to ban or charge extra for.

I am seriously thinking about banning indoor door smoking or enacting a surcharge for it.

Please note that smokers as used above should really say irresponsible smokers.

[MRRiley]

Speaking as a landlord of 30 years and as a reformed smoker:

Smokers burn your tubs, floors and counters with their butts.
Smokers make the unit stink with the smell of burning paper and tobacco.
Smokers stain your ceilings so badly that a special stain killing coat or two of an expensive primer is required before you can paint.
Smokers are not a more protected subset of society and are not likely to become one.


Speaking as a property owner and as a landlord:
Anything that you do that cost me more than average wear an tear or extra expense, I have a right to ban or charge extra for.

I am seriously thinking about banning indoor door smoking or enacting a surcharge for it.

Please note that smokers as used above should really say irresponsible smokers.

Frankly I agree with your reasoning. And as an owner of "private" property, you can pretty much restrict or charge extra for whatever behavior you chose as part of your contract with the renter.

I'm not sure if the same is true of "public" housing, since we all have an ownership stake in it (even the residents).

[GeneV]

The safety issue is paramount to me. The safety issue aside, it would seem to be a policy decision whether we allow a resident of public housing to use it in a way that causes excessive wear.

Also, increasingly, landlords are beings sued by tenants who claim damage from second hand smoke which allegedly penetrates their apartment from the neighbors. I've defended several of these. Who wants that trouble?

[Colbyt]

Frankly I agree with your reasoning. And as an owner of "private" property, you can pretty much restrict or charge extra for whatever behavior you chose as part of your contract with the renter.

I'm not sure if the same is true of "public" housing, since we all have an ownership stake in it (even the residents).

Don't you have to earn enough to pay taxes in order to have a "stake" in it?

Being bad and I admit it.