An addiction to smoking may soon get some Burlington residents kicked out of their homes. A new smoking ban at a few of the city's subsidized housing complexes has resident smokers upset.
The policy change is part of a national movement headed by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to make low-income housing a healthier place for all its residents.
But why? Secondhand smoke isn't a risk to anyone if they smoke in their rooms, or a provided smoking room. And fires? Well, then candles and stoves must be included in the ban too. And aerosols - what if one gets left by the window and explodes in the direct sunlight? We know it's not about health though, because these tyrants won't even let them smoke outside, instead they must go to the street. That's right, all those senior citizens must now walk to the street, risking attack, assault, falling over and injurying themselves and even getting hit by cars, because smoking by the front door is too dangerous.
But Jackie Allen is a non-smoking resident and says she's thrilled with the policy change.
"I absolutely love it. Before you couldn't sit out there without five to 10 people immediately lighting up. I would have to leave because I can't take the smoke."
you'd expect someone of that age to be able to do the simple arithmatic of "10 of them, 1 of me, i'm in the minority."
Housing officials says this new policy isn't meant to single out any particular population
It doesn't single out any particular population at all, oh, except smokers. But they don't count apparently.
Housing officials says this new policy isn't meant to single out any particular population and explains that many area landlords have no smoking clauses in their leases.
This is a nationwide policy affecting only senior citizens, people who literally have nowhere else to go. It isn't the same as a private landlord making an individual decision.
The comment section contains 3 comments from the same person, who will hopefully one day understand how it feels to be treated this badly:
Cigarettes are $7-8 a pack, and going up. At a pack a day, that's $210-240 a month. Decker Towers is public housing, subsidized by the taxpayers. The residents, who receive SSDI or SSI, pay 33% of their income, typically $250-400. That means that most could swing between 50-66%, instead of %33 of their rent if they didn't smoke. Why do taxpayers have to underwrite someone's habit? Residency there is voluntary.It's not a right, but a privilege, although many today consider it to be an entitlement.
So, in a sense, we're paying for their cigarettes.
Also, what about added costs for medical problems? Hey, smoke away, just don't ask me to pay for it by subsidizing it.
Simple solution- pay for your own place out of your monthly check, and smoke 'til you drop.... Or take advantage of the cessation help that's being offered, and stay.
The financial argument never stacked up. They're senior citizens, they paid tax their whole life and so it's their own money that is being used. Secondly, they're smokers, who pay far and above the usual tax rates non-smokers pay, and the so-called costs removed for treating smokers is substantially smaller than the gross sum collected. So these people are paying for themselves.
How is it fair to expect someone who has smoekd for 50, 60+ years to suddenly quit? The fanaticism is such now that people don't even think of the harm to health that can be caused by such a change in lifestyle habits at that age.