You’ve never been driven off your balcony by down-drafting smoke.
True, but that’s okay if it’s the choice of the resident. Not so if it’s a government agency making that choice for the resident.
Agreed that there are other reasons to fight this, but I was trying to bring in an angle heretofore unconsidered by trying to illustrate how this might play out in real life. What if you did grow up knowing that your folks had fewer rights than their peers just because they couldn’t afford to get out of a public housing project? To me, that would be quite sad.
What if they have fewer rights because they live in an apartment that doesn’t allow pets? Or doesn’t allow smoking? Because I lived in an apartment complex like that a few years ago. True, there wasn’t a curfew, but from the kid’s perspective, does it matter who makes the rules he has to abide by?
Dr. Leistkow has a MD, not a PhD. And Davis is bovine country.
But there’s also the issue of the owner. I can piss on my walls and remove my floor boards, but I can’t redo my roof or replace my windows because of my condo association. Renters usually can’t paint their rooms, they don’t belong to them. If I desperately wanted to be able to cut holes in my external walls I’d buy my own house where I could do so. Just like a person with pets is free to find a place that rents to pet owners. In the case of public housing, the government, I think, owns the housing so they get to set some reasonable rules on the usage of it.
Well, bumclouds. That just makes me want to go set fire to a cow.
Yes, but that’s the key question, isn’t it? What is reasonable?
In determining what is reasonable as well, it should be understood that public housing is there to provide housing options for people who don’t have a heck of a lot of choices open to them. The government isn’t exactly in the private real estate business when it makes affordable homes available to lower income families.
Still doesn’t equalize the two scenarios. You entered into an agreement with your landlord/condo association of your own volition when you signed the lease/contract. Patently not the situation when the government imposes its will unilaterally.
Conservatives and libertarians would argue that a person has the freedom to refuse government help and public housing.
cough If the no-smoking-in-public-housing-and-dorm-rooms bothers you, then here’s your solution!
Live somewhere else.
If you’re a student, live off-campus.
I’ll freely agree that I’m not a big fan of The Man telling me what to do (and therefore think The Man can stick it when it comes to private dorm rooms), but if The Man is the landlord (as is the case in public dorm rooms and public housing) then The Man gets to dictate the conditions of the tenancy. If that’s no pets, you can’t have a puppy no matter how cute it is. If that’s no smoking, light up elsewhere.
As my mother used to phrase it “When you’re under my roof, you’ll abide by my rules.”
I think he means cigarette-related deaths from fires, as opposed to cigar- or pipe-related deaths from fires. Still not exactly what I’d call an Earth-shattering insight.
I’m all for letting people smoke to their heart’s content. But they should be able to pay for having the carpets steam cleaned or replaced and the walls painted* when they leave a property that belongs to someone else. That stink lingers for a long, long time.
But anyone who smokes in a NS hotel room should beaten more senseless than they already are. I shouldn’t have to go through 6 NS hotel rooms before I find one that dosn’t smell like an ashtray.
*[sub]within reason. if you’ve been there for a couple of years, new carpet and paint should be done anyway[/sub]
…
…
You owe me a new keyboard 
Although I can see where this might be considered intrusive/overreaching/ what not, I’m inclined to agree with the point made by continuity eror. These are far from permanent homes. Smoke will make the units virtually unrentable to anyone but a smoker (and I know many smokers who prefer not to get smoking rooms due to the smell). Perhaps the landlords are finding more and more tenants that are none smokers, but they are running out of non smoking units?
And honestly, I was giddy when smoking was banned throughout California. Last summer I went to Chicago and I was amazed that they still had smoking and non smoking sections. 'Cuz, ya know, three whole feet totally saves my lungs. Smoking is another reason I rarely visit Las Vegas and, when I do, I always get sick.
Head on over to Cattleman’s. Or outside the Segundo dorms. Dammit, now I’m hungry…
If it’s your belief that the government owns the housing in this instance, find some evidence. Public housing is complex, but “housing projects” are no longer the norm for delivery of public housing. And it’s certainly not as simple as “the government owns it” - a great deal of public housing is built by private organizations with a mix of federal and private funding. New York state certainly does not own every public housing unit in the state.
As for the college students, as demand has risen on our campus, more and more floors are going smoke-free. In fact, I believe the entire west wing of the dorm I used to live in - which means my old room as well - is now smoke-free. Funny how those sorts of steps are never enough for the anti-smoking brigade; it’s not enough until the government steps in to stop the Evil Smokers[sup]TM[/sup] and punish them for their iniquity.
Or, you know, you could live in a no-smoking room. You could live on a no-smoking floor. You could decide that since it’s easily within your power to live a life insulated perfectly from smoke with only the most minor steps to avoid it, you should do so. Or you could have the government enforce your preference by fiat. Nevermind the fact that everyone has to encounter a few annoyances from others in society - non-smokers are RIGHTEOUS AND PURE, and the anti-smoking zealots have every right to do their best to force decisions on others.
You mean to say that every restaurant in Chicago has completely inadequate non-smoking sections? Gosh, not my experience. I think you mean to say that “a very small number of them are inadequate.” While I smoke, I’ve been to Chicago many times with my non-smoking parents. My father in particular cannot abide the smell of cigarette smoke (making long car rides with him a little more annoying for me, but such is life) and we’ve never had that problem.
Funny. My own area is not smoke-free either, and yet most of the restaurants to an excellent job providing non-smoking sections. Why shouldn’t you be able to patronize the great majority of restaurants that are either smoke-free or well-ventilated?
Because it’s not enough, of course. Any inch of space that’s not perfectly smoke-free is cause for the zealots to come out and scream. When you could solve your problems completely by eliminating, oh, say, 10% of the restaurants out there (in reality a much smaller number, in my experience) because they don’t provide adequate non-smoking space, it sort of puts the lie to histrionic claims that you can’t escape it. I couldn’t begin to imagine why you feel somehow entitled to have every restaurant out there legally bound to satisfy your needs when most of them have perfectly comfortable smoke-free sections. When this fight is over, do you intend to lobby to force them all to serve your favorite dish as well? After all, you’re just trying to get a nice steak; it’s ridiculous that the Indian restaurant up the street won’t serve it to you!
You might want to head back to your, possibly non-smoking, old dorm room and brush up on your reading comprehension.
Hey, you’d support me storing some radioactive material in my dorm room next to yours, right? Or maybe in the next wing? Or perhaps if I was working with some cyanide and formaldehyde on a hot plate in my room?
Why? Do you know anything about the public housing system? I’ve taken classes in that kind of thing - I’m studying urban planning, and I think you’ve got some misapprehension about how the public housing system works.
If you heated formaldehyde and cyanide on a hot plate, the vapours would kill me as I walked past your door. Are you saying that the merest hint of cigarette smoke would do you in?
If so, I recommend a non-smoking floor. See? Even for your unique health situation, there is already provision for you and you need not fear for your life.
You’re doing a great job of illustrating my point about how easily a non-smoker can avoid smoke, though. It really goes to show that an innocent desire to not be exposed to cigarette smoke couldn’t possibly explain your political position.
I can’t think of a more cogent pro-smoker’s rights argument than simply requoting this one.
You apparently weren’t able to figure out that when I said “I think”, that it wasn’t some thing I knew as a fact. I don’t know who the current owners of public housing are and my supposition is based up on it actually having some ownership other than those living there.
Are you saying the mereish hint of formaldehyde and cyanide would kill you? Don’t you trust me to keep the amount in the air at levels that I believe are safe? I am a chemist.
But what if the owners don’t want to deal with all the crap that comes with smokers? Just like some don’t want to deal with the crap (literal and figurative) that comes with pet owners.
Heh, well smoke has this habit of disappating and being above the harmful levels while being below the levels of detection.
What is my political position?
Hush you, I’m almost there.