Hawaii House passes smoking ban in public housing (low income, apartments)

[whtviper1]

I've always thought if someone can afford to smoke at over $10/pack, they probably shouldn't be in subsidized public housing. The senate also passed this bill - but since there are changes it will ultimately need to be reconciled before it becomes law.

Hawaii House passes smoking ban in public housing | More Local News - KITV Home


"The Hawaii House approved a proposal to ban smoking in public housing on Friday.
Rep. Scott Saiki says the proposed ban reflects a growing trend in high-rise condominiums that have banned smoking.

Under the bill, all new leases and permits for public housing must state that smoking is prohibited. If a tenant violates the rule, he or she could be evicted."

[Galactastica]

It's not only the cost, but smoking inside does an incredible amount of damage to the dwelling. Regard for the tenant's health or not, it costs in more ways than one!

[MauiPartTimer]

...and if someone is getting assistance for their housing needs, it's a pretty good bet they're getting assitance with their health care, so anything that discourages them from needing addtional care is ok by me.

I tend to be about individual freedoms and choices, but when those choices become a burden on others, that's where I draw the line.

On a realted note, I think Hawaii should adopt helmet laws again. There's a reason emergncy room staff call them "donorcylces". The previous law cut deaths and serious head injuries in half. It was repealed and they doubled back up again. WFT?

[hawaiian by heart]

I have always had a good chuckle when selective morality issues like this comes up. Grantted that this issue has health implications and is a burden to the taxpayer. But its also like watching a slight of hand illusionist. They got us focusing on some object or hand while we should be focusing on the other hand etc.

Do we tell owners of low income public housing they can't smoke, Why not? They get fairmarket value for there units (taxpayers money, then they get tax money for repairs, upgrades. Then they also get a huge tax break at the end of the year for being a low income public housing provider. Which is more then any equal fairmarket aprtment owner would get and also adds to the burden of the taxpayer.

In our countries history we have had witchhunts and burned people at the stake. Today we don't burn ppl alive. But we still have witchhunts, today its cigarettes and the poor(welfare) and the morality of it. Whats sad is, there is alot of bigger health issues to be concerned about that kills people, etc

[KaraBenNemsi]

The deconstruction of the social web btw people is profitable for corporations, hence the government is increasingly called in as a nanny. This is just one example--situations like these developed over decades. As bizarre as they appear now, WE are the one who make our government be the caretaker for things we should do by ourselves. While businesses and media laugh themselves to the banks.

Here's how our business world profits: A divorce brings economic hardship to all parties involved. More work, less pay. There have to be 2 cars were one was enough. Two apartments. Double the Christmas and birthday gifts for the kids. Double food prep and double commutes, double shopping trips, double the debts. And so on. Who profits? Who loses?

Grandparents don't live at home or around the corner anymore. So payed childcare kicks in. You don't chose your partner once for a lifetime, but date for years. Spend huge amounts on trips, clubs, dinner dates, clothing before you'll settle eventually; just to get divorced again after a few years.

When one relies on the government (and the majority wants to have people off the streets and doing that), you relinquish certain rights.

I for one doesn't want anybody in subsidized housing having unprotected sex. But I am pretty sure there's somehow much money being made from that and I will not get my way here...

[Dthraco]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

I've always thought if someone can afford to smoke at over $10/pack, they probably shouldn't be in subsidized public housing.

Couldn't agree more.

[McFrostyJ]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

I've always thought if someone can afford to smoke at over $10/pack, they probably shouldn't be in subsidized public housing.

I agree!

[hawaiian by heart]

@McFrostyJ,Dthraco, anyone

How about if they own a car with insurance or a smartphone or buys more food then one meal a day or is paying for school? Yeah they should sell it all to pay for housing, because we spend so much individually for those morale rejects. Better yet! lets hang or burn them all.

[hawaiian by heart]

I believe we are forgetting if the person is a smoker or a non smoker it doesn't matter they still pay 35% of there gross wages towards rent in SEC 8. So where does the smoking come into the discussion? Morale witchhunt? Thou i personally agree that smoking is a filthy habbit and wouldn't want people to smoke, its no morally worse then the millions of people i pay for tax wise for fire, paramedics because they drank to much or ate to much red meat there whole lives.

[eureka1]

As a landlord I can tell you that nothing ages an apartment like tobacco smoke. That and cat p***.