The title sounds a little dramatic, unless it affects
you.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=HUD-2015-0101-0001
QuoteFR 5597-P-02
Action
Proposed rule.
Summary
This proposed rule would require each public housing agency (PHA) administering public housing to implement a smoke-free policy. Specifically, this rule proposes that no later than 18 months from the effective date of the final rule, each PHA must implement a policy prohibiting lit tobacco products in all living units, indoor common areas in public housing, and in PHA administrative office buildings (in brief, a smoke-free policy for all public housing indoor areas). The smoke-free policy must also extend to all outdoor areas up to 25 feet from the housing and administrative office buildings. HUD proposes implementation of smoke-free public housing to improve indoor air quality in the housing, benefit the health of public housing residents and PHA staff, reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, and lower overall maintenance costs.
Dates
Comment Due Date: January 19, 2016.
Addresses
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule. All communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically.
There is very little time left to respond. I urge low-income Americans to comment on this official site, or by mail. Also get the word out about this curtailing of our liberty. You can comment on any aspect, but here are the specific questions they want to address:
Quote1. What barriers that PHAs could encounter in implementing smoke-free housing? What costs could PHAs incur? Are there any specific costs to enforcing such a policy?
2. Does this proposed rule adequately address the adverse effects of smoking and secondhand smoke on PHAs and PHA residents?
3. Does this proposed rule create burdens, costs, or confer benefits specific to families, children, persons with disabilities, owners, or the elderly, particularly if any individual or family is evicted as a result of this policy?
4. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free policy, what exceptions to the requirements have been granted based on tenants' requests?
5. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free policy, what experiences, lessons, or advice would you share based on your experiences with implementing and enforcing the policy?
6. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free policy, what tobacco cessation services were offered to residents to assist with the change? Did you establish partnerships with external groups to provide or refer residents to these services?
7. Are there specific areas of support that HUD could provide PHAs that would be particularly helpful in the implementation of the proposed rule?
8. Should the policy extend to electronic nicotine delivery systems, such as e-cigarettes?
9. Should the policy extend to waterpipe tobacco smoking? Does such smoking increase the risk of fire or property damage?
I was a smoker for nine years before quitting last year.
Every apartment I've ever lived in, I smoked outside. Why? Because I would get charged a horrendous cleaning bill for smoking inside and it wasn't worth it to me when I could just easily step out. I smoked in my car, but my car was my property.
I also spent five years in the Army where you could get in serious trouble for smoking within 50 feet of a building, not 25 feet, as this proposes.
I never saw the big deal about not being able to smoke wherever I wanted because there are plenty of people who don't like it and I try to be respectful of them. "Smokers' rights" were never a big priority to me even as a smoker. Especially since I've quit smoking, I hate being around other people's cigarette smoke. I stayed in a smoking room at the Motel 6 last year because they were out of regular rooms, and I got nauseated. Smoking allowed? Felt more like smoking required.
I fail to see how it infringes on low-income Americans. I get that this has to do with public housing, but no one can smoke cigarettes in other publicly-owned buildings. Hell, you can barely smoke inside in any privately-owned public establishments anywhere any more.
One of the first obnoxious human behaviors I ever met was the "born again" fucktard. The second most was the ex-drunk, then the ex-smoker. When I quit smoking, I made sure I never became one of those fucks that pranced about all self righteous. If I let someone in my car who smokes, I don't ask them not to, I invited them into my car knowing they smoked, if they choose not to, thats considerate of them, but if they ask, I let them. Frankly, I have far less fear of getting cancer from second hand smoke as I do a coronary from getting pissed off from fucktard religious people.
QuoteI never saw the big deal about not being able to smoke wherever I wanted because there are plenty of people who don't like it and I try to be respectful of them.
It's not "wherever" I want. I don't expect that. But this is the privacy of my apartment, for Christ's sake. People have smoked in these buildings for decades, and it's never been a problem. It's just another attempt by health-nazis to force their agenda on the poor.
QuoteI fail to see how it infringes on low-income Americans.
Really? I fail to see how it doesn't.
QuoteI get that this has to do with public housing, but no one can smoke cigarettes in other publicly-owned buildings.
Other public buildings are
public spaces. My apartment is not a public space. I live alone.
I want to oppose this but ... they don't own the property they live in and the landlord can and should set usage rules.
Free money always comes with strings.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 25, 2015, 10:20:29 PM
It's just another attempt by health-nazis to force their agenda on the poor.
There are lots of private rental companies that don't allow tenants to smoke indoors.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 25, 2015, 10:20:29 PMI fail to see how it infringes on low-income Americans.
They aren't saying you can't smoke at all if you live in public housing, just that you can't smoke inside.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 25, 2015, 10:20:29 PMOther public buildings are public spaces. My apartment is not a public space. I live alone.
But it's being partially subsidized by taxpayers.
I guess I don't really know what to say. Smoking is expensive. When I smoked a pack a day I spent about $180 a month on cigarettes. I get that it's really hard to quit smoking, but it's really expensive to
keep smoking.
While there's a point to be made if enough smoke passes through ventilation to cause a health danger, if that's not the case people really need to be left alone. I smoke in my own apartment, but I don't share any sort of ventilation with any of my neighbors. I was directly asked on the application if I smoked, and I answered honestly. If I lose my deposit over this, I will be understanding about it and move on.Cigarettes are already the most heavily taxed product in the US. While I acknowledge that its a deadly habit, at some point I think we deserve to be left alone like anyone else as long as we are paying our own way.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on November 25, 2015, 10:52:52 PM
I want to oppose this but ... they don't own the property they live in and the landlord can and should set usage rules.
Free money always comes with strings.
Jason! I'm surprised! You're straying from your core value - liberty for all. I mean were talking about peoples homes.
I don't think we should punish the poor, any more than we already have with exorbitant taxes on tobacco, by taking away their home if they smoke. This rule will affect nearly a million households.
And what the hell is with the 25 feet from the building bullshit? What asshole added that provision?
Outside is outside. Period. I mean that's just common sense.
To be blunt, it's not your apartment. You necessarily give up some of your liberty when you ask the government to help you out. I kind of agree with the new rule. After all, it is public housing and someone else may be living in the apartment in a couple of years.
Quote from: Jack89 on November 26, 2015, 09:00:26 AM
To be blunt, it's not your apartment. You necessarily give up some of your liberty when you ask the government to help you out. I kind of agree with the new rule. After all, it is public housing and someone else may be living in the apartment in a couple of years.
The apartment doesn't "belong" to the landlord or the government either. They are stewards of G-d's property ... ahem. Everything in modern society involves some subsidy or other by the taxpayer. So the taxpayer should have ... thru representatives of course ... direct involvement in everything you do and don't do. I call that ... democratic totalitarianism. As an opponent of totalitarianism ... the shit monkeys can kiss my ass. And no, I am not a smoker.
If you have a disgusting habit that clearly not all people are on board with, then it's just common courtesy to take reasonable steps to make sure your habit inconveniences as few people as possible. Filling the ambient air with noxious smoke is obviously far more an imposition onto those around than spitting on the floor.
Yet another restriction on poverty. Here's the rub. You can live in such a place and refuse to bathe to the point that you can stink out all of your neighbors and there's nothing illegal about it. You can run around all day spraying room 'fresheners' that I find personally offensive and they make it difficult for me to breath with it in the air. You can have a barbecue daily if you like and burn what is kerosene and have high carbon pollutants permeating the neighborhood with little to no restrictions, but a cigarette? OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Hey, want the restrictions? Fine, forfeit the deposit. It's not rocket science, but evicting people who smoke is creating a whole new class of homeless people. Unless cigarettes are outlawed I think that trying to micro manage people's lives smacks of 'class warfare'.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 26, 2015, 12:08:27 AM
Jason! I'm surprised! You're straying from your core value - liberty for all. I mean were talking about peoples homes.
I don't think we should punish the poor, any more than we already have with exorbitant taxes on tobacco, by taking away their home if they smoke. This rule will affect nearly a million households.
And what the hell is with the 25 feet from the building bullshit? What asshole added that provision? Outside is outside. Period. I mean that's just common sense.
But we're not talking about their homes. We're talking about how they live in someone else's property. You can't have liberty without property rights, and they don't have property rights where they live.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If you own your house free and clear ... then the government (eminent domain) owns it. After all, it was an American army (in our case) that took it from the original owners. If you have a mortgage, you don't even have that, the lien holder is a steward for the government. Fictional property rights, is where society falls down, ever since the invention of farming. People became stationary, and deluded themselves into thinking they had ownership.
What if I reject 5000 years of property rights bull shit? As an American in particular, anything I can say about property rights is hypocritical bull shit about holding stolen property. I rent, but I have owned. I have abandoned ownership ... because I didn't want to be that big a hypocrite. In England as I understand it, the Queen technically owns all the real estate ... and that all other people there are legalized squatters, dating back to the Domesday Book.
So here I am, in a shit hole I inherited ... I am either staying in property that is ultimately owned by the government (sorry Any Rand) or I am staying in someone else's property that is ultimately owned by government. And either I or my landlord is guilty of the felony of holding stolen property. And the government of course is guilty of irreligion ... the Natives knew that the Great Father owned the land, and they are right.
The larger question isn't some legal crap ... it is what do you have to do to get along with people in your neighborhood. Of course are usual answer to that today is to drone them from Nellis AFB. So ethically, to what degree does a smoker have to take into consideration the life of the people around him? And to what degree does the non-smoker have to take into consideration the life of the smoker. Today the answer to that is democratic totalitarianism. No drugs, no smoking, no drinking intoxicants ... in short, Sunni Islam ;-) Of course we also need commissars and grupenfuhrer (ward healers) to go around taking the food out of the hands of the fat people ... gotta hate fat people, right?
Quote from: aitm on November 25, 2015, 09:56:41 PM
One of the first obnoxious human behaviors I ever met was the "born again" fucktard. The second most was the ex-drunk, then the ex-smoker. When I quit smoking, I made sure I never became one of those fucks that pranced about all self righteous. If I let someone in my car who smokes, I don't ask them not to, I invited them into my car knowing they smoked, if they choose not to, thats considerate of them, but if they ask, I let them. Frankly, I have far less fear of getting cancer from second hand smoke as I do a coronary from getting pissed off from fucktard religious people.
I quit smoking in 1988. I don't care if people want to kill themselves, nor do I care what means they use. Just don't leave a mess, please.
Unfortunately tobacco users ... aren't too considerate. But then non-smokers aren't either, they just find other ways to be obnoxious.
Remember, real totalitarianism is very simple ... "everything is forbidden, except for what is mandatory". The NWO moves swiftly to its final reductio ad absurdum ... mutually assured destruction ... brought about by ... my dictator is better than your dictator.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 26, 2015, 02:29:26 PM
Yet another restriction on poverty. Here's the rub. You can live in such a place and refuse to bathe to the point that you can stink out all of your neighbors and there's nothing illegal about it. You can run around all day spraying room 'fresheners' that I find personally offensive and they make it difficult for me to breath with it in the air. You can have a barbecue daily if you like and burn what is kerosene and have high carbon pollutants permeating the neighborhood with little to no restrictions, but a cigarette? OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Hey, want the restrictions? Fine, forfeit the deposit. It's not rocket science, but evicting people who smoke is creating a whole new class of homeless people. Unless cigarettes are outlawed I think that trying to micro manage people's lives smacks of 'class warfare'.
You hit the nail on the head, APA. And that point about stinky people being worse than tobacco is so true. I had a next-door-neighbor in a building I used to live in...
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on November 26, 2015, 04:49:50 PM
But we're not talking about their homes. We're talking about how they live in someone else's property. You can't have liberty without property rights, and they don't have property rights where they live.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Your argument only defends the governments authority to limit our liberties, it doesn't address the government's choice to do so.
I've lived here for nine years, and never had a complaint about smoking. So how am I a nuisance? I live alone, so there is no consideration of second-hand smoke danger. In 28 years of smoking in my own apartments, I have never started a fire. So how am I a risk?
It's the health-nazis new way of controlling whom they can (the poor). These fuckers can be as self righteous on the left, as the theocrats are on the right.
Reading it over though, I may have found some hope:
QuoteSubpart G Smoke Free Public Housing
§ 965.651
Applicability.
This subpart applies to public housing units, except for dwelling units in a mixed-finance project. Public housing is defined as low-income housing, and all necessary appurtenances (e.g., community facilities, public housing offices, day care centers, and laundry rooms) thereto, assisted under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (the 1937 Act), other than assistance under section 8 of the 1937 Act.
I live in Section 8 housing.
This.
"it doesn't address the government's choice to do so" .... the government or a landlord can be lenient or hard ass. Being a hard ass isn't a right, it is a personality defect.
And Section 8 or not ... real public housing is mostly passe .... it is mostly done thru Section8 for the last 30 years. Camel nose under the tent in any case ... some legal quack will find a way to extend from X housing to Y housing in a most rational way ;-( After all, our legal quacks decided that corporations are people.
poor people don't have freedom. they never have and probably never will.
I live in section 8 and I happen to live in a brand spanking new building just built 2 years ago. I'm the first one to live in my apartment. It has always been smoke free since I moved in. I understand that this is how we control poor people but this is nothing new.
I'm more worried that section 8 will be shut down by the government. Our Governor said he was going to eliminate welfare and he practically has. I can barely feed my family by the end of the month and I'm now 3 months behind in electric bills. My situation isn't improving at all any time soon.
This is just one more fuck you to poor people.
#firstworldproblems #CalltheWaambulance
It's a fair rule, and, frankly, I'm surprised it's not been on the books long ago. Subsidized housing is homes that the government is footing the bill for. Why should they have to pay so much more to take care of the burns in the carpet and the odors clinging to the walls? Further, I mean, c'mon... If you're in subsidized housing, do you *really* have money to burn?
It's laughable to consider this a punishment to the poor. Smoking isn't good for anyone--and generally, poor people already have poor health (lack of healthcare access, food, etc.)
Quote from: doorknob on November 30, 2015, 07:31:53 PM
poor people don't have freedom. they never have and probably never will.
I live in section 8 and I happen to live in a brand spanking new building just built 2 years ago. I'm the first one to live in my apartment. It has always been smoke free since I moved in. I understand that this is how we control poor people but this is nothing new.
I'm more worried that section 8 will be shut down by the government. Our Governor said he was going to eliminate welfare and he practically has. I can barely feed my family by the end of the month and I'm now 3 months behind in electric bills. My situation isn't improving at all any time soon.
This is just one more fuck you to poor people.
The purpose for eliminating the Middle Class ... is to make more poor people. So control of poor people is the leading edge of controlling everyone. And the reason for the control isn't because of concern for the general welfare ... the plutos don't believe in welfare! It is because sado-masochism is the lowest common denominator of human civilization. The plutos get to play the sadists.
Quote from: doorknob on November 30, 2015, 07:31:53 PMI'm more worried that section 8 will be shut down by the government.
And yet some of my elderly Christian neighbors are Republicans! Are they so stupid, that they will bring about the demise of the very thing that makes it possible for them to live, in such a well-cared-for property, for such a low price? :41:
Quote from: Dreamer on December 01, 2015, 01:52:34 AMWhy should they have to pay so much more to take care of the burns in the carpet and the odors clinging to the walls?
They replace the carpet, and paint the walls, every time somebody moves out. Regardless of whether they were smokers or not. You may be overestimating the turnover rate (these buildings are hard to get into, and people don't leave them frequently).
Besides, as APA pointed out, there is a security deposit intended to cover any damages. Let a smoker pay a higher security deposit. Problem solved.
Quote from: Dreamer on December 01, 2015, 01:52:34 AMIt's laughable to consider this a punishment to the poor.
It's laughable to someone not living under their rules.
Quote from: Dreamer on December 01, 2015, 01:52:34 AMSmoking isn't good for anyone--and generally, poor people already have poor health (lack of healthcare access, food, etc.)
Yeah, those dirty unhealthy poor people shouldn't be allowed to indulge in their filthy unhealthy habits. Why should they have the same rights as the rest of us? They're just second-class citizens, on the government titty, so let's treat them like children.
Another thought occurs to me: how much of the savings predicted will be offset by the costs of evicting people, who quit, then backslide and smoke in secret, till their righteous neighbors rat them out? Isn't it a pretty picture? Yet, it's not beyond the possible futures for me, and many other lifelong tobacco users.
One more thing: no smoking within 25 feet of the structure, is patently absurd. Even if I were to concede the sanctity of my living-room, I won't concede my balcony. The outdoors is the outdoors. Whereas 8 or 10 feet from a public entrance is reasonable, restricting my balcony is not.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 01, 2015, 08:36:50 AM
They replace the carpet, and paint the walls, every time somebody moves out. Regardless of whether they were smokers or not. You may be overestimating the turnover rate (these buildings are hard to get into, and people don't leave them frequently).
Besides, as APA pointed out, there is a security deposit intended to cover any damages. Let a smoker pay a higher security deposit. Problem solved.
It's laughable to someone not living under their rules.
Yeah, those dirty unhealthy poor people shouldn't be allowed to indulge in their filthy unhealthy habits. Why should they have the same rights as the rest of us? They're just second-class citizens, on the government titty, so let's treat them like children.
I live in subsidized housing. The rules where I live are enforced, so the turnover is fairly high. Other subsidized housing in my city has low turnover because they don't give a shit about the rules. I purposefully chose this specific complex because I wanted people to be kicked out if they routinely refuse to follow the rules.
I'm not paying for where I live--consequently, I do not feel entitled to the same rights as if I was paying fair market value or owned my home. They do not routinely replace the paint and carpet unless a person has lived here for two years or more. Fixing the damage done by smokers is far more costly and requires more extensive repairs--I know that is the case here; the manager complains about it.
I live under the rules. It's ridiculous to act as if this is a war on the poor, restricting their smoking in government-owned properties. Waa waa
Quote from: Dreamer on December 01, 2015, 11:55:23 AM
I live in subsidized housing. The rules where I live are enforced, so the turnover is fairly high. Other subsidized housing in my city has low turnover because they don't give a shit about the rules. I purposefully chose this specific complex because I wanted people to be kicked out if they routinely refuse to follow the rules.
I'm not paying for where I live--consequently, I do not feel entitled to the same rights as if I was paying fair market value or owned my home. They do not routinely replace the paint and carpet unless a person has lived here for two years or more. Fixing the damage done by smokers is far more costly and requires more extensive repairs--I know that is the case here; the manager complains about it.
I live under the rules. It's ridiculous to act as if this is a war on the poor, restricting their smoking in government-owned properties. Waa waa
I pay 1/3 of the rent where I live. I live with the elderly, and unless someone dies or moves to a nursing home, they don't move out. The rules where I live are strictly enforced as well. But "NO SMOKING" isn't currently one of the rules, and I see no reason it should be. Any additional costs to refurbishing an apartment when a smoker moves out, should easily be covered by an increased security deposit for smokers. It
is a war on the poor. You're just to much of a pussy to care.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 01, 2015, 03:09:34 PM
It is a war on the poor. You're just to much of a pussy to care.
When I think of "war on the poor," I think about things like denying poor people adequate healthcare or nutritious food. I think of kids in poor neighborhoods getting shitty educations. I think of food deserts and malnutrition and shutting down Planned Parenthood. I think of the shitty sign I saw just this morning at the grocery store that says WIC no longer covers 2% milk for whatever asinine fucking reason. I don't think of smoking. Of all the injustices suffered by the poor in America, if smoking in a government subsidized apartment is the hill you want to stand on and beat your chest, then I don't even really know what to say.
It would be a war on the poor to say that you can't buy cigarettes at all if you're receiving government assistance. It's not a war on the poor to say you can't smoke in an apartment that the government owns and helps you pay for.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 01, 2015, 04:07:42 PM
It would be a war on the poor to say that you can't buy cigarettes at all if you're receiving government assistance. It's not a war on the poor to say you can't smoke in an apartment that the government owns and helps you pay for.
I'm going to have to stand with Solomon here. While I'm not section 8, many in my complex are and I have my own rights to consider here. If this comes about, i will no doubt be subjected to the same rule even though I am not being subsidized. Besides, considering the history of the anti-smoking movement and their obvious eventual goals, this looks to me like a step to criminalize all smoking in all indoor places, including privately owned houses.
Let me point out something: low income housing is something we have to deal with or there would be more homeless. If you are on section 8 assistance, you are literally a few steps removed from being a piss-soaked hobo, out on the streets pushing a cart around. You don't even own the space you live in, and you don't even pay the full amount it takes to rent it. As a tenant, you are expected to take good care of your apartment. As a person on assistance, you are expected to take steps to see that you still deserve to have it. Furthermore, a lot of these low-income housing complexes where you can get section 8 assistance are pretty much contractually obligated to make them available to qualifying people; the space you are occupying is essentially reserved for people with low-income; when you leave, someone else is going to be taking your place and have very little choice in the matter.
Now, I know that most of you smokers out there don't realize this, but your habit stinks up everything you touch. I can tell when a smoker has passed me by. I can tell instantly that one of a house's residents is a smoker. I can smell the stink on clothes that have been through the wash a dozen times that a smoker owned them at one point. It's really that unpleasant and penetrating. You guys smell like burnt asphalt, and everything you own smells the same way. Every time I rented an apartment, I preferred apartments previously rented by the non-smokers', every damn time, because the smokers' plots stink that much.
Yes, that means you permanently devalue every property you own or rent. You make every homeowner/tenant after you have to suffer your stink. One can make a case that smoking in any building is vandalism.
When you own your own domicile, or at least earn enough money to rent out one of your own choosing, then you get to bitch about your rights to stink up the place. Until then, get your complaints out of here.
Quote from: _Xenu_ on December 01, 2015, 05:19:07 PM
I'm going to have to stand with Solomon here. While I'm not section 8, many in my complex are and I have my own rights to consider here. If this comes about, i will no doubt be subjected to the same rule even though I am not being subsidized.
Is it a "right" to be able to smoke in your privately-owned home? Well, smoking is legal, so sure. Is it a "right" to be able to smoke in a rented home? If your landlord says you can.
Take smoking out of it and interchange any other policy. Many landlords (some public housing units included) don't allow pets. That doesn't mean you have lost your legal right to own a pet, it just means if you have one and want to keep it, you have to live somewhere else. Some places don't allow more than one or two pets, some have weight restrictions, some don't allow certain breeds or species. I wouldn't call it a war on Great Dane breeders: I'd call it something like landlords have the right to set some basic ground rules for how you treat their property.
Fire safety codes dictate that you can't have an open flame on patios, and some places enforce it so heavily they don't allow you to even keep a grill on the patio. At my last apartment, I put my grill in storage and used a George Foreman: I didn't carry on about a "Constitutional right" to a flame seared steak or a "war on renters."
At the apartment pool they didn't allow glass bottles, so I had to drink beer out of aluminum cans. I didn't refer to that as a "war on people who prefer their alcohol untarnished by a metallic taste."
Bottom line is, when it's someone else's property, they have the right to dictate what you can and can't do to their property, and you have the right to seek other accommodations.
I do understand the practical side of this. If a landlord attempts to discourage smoking indoors by requiring a security deposit and spelling out in the lease that you will forfeit that deposit if there is evidence of smoking, so be it. I get that's the way it's always been where you live, but things change. Fact is, in virtually every state, if smoking restrictions are included in the lease, the government will back up the landlord’s rights to create a smoke-free environment. You are of course free to violate that, and they are of course free to terminate your lease.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 01, 2015, 04:07:42 PM
When I think of "war on the poor," I think about things like denying poor people adequate healthcare or nutritious food. I think of kids in poor neighborhoods getting shitty educations. I think of food deserts and malnutrition and shutting down Planned Parenthood. I think of the shitty sign I saw just this morning at the grocery store that says WIC no longer covers 2% milk for whatever asinine fucking reason. I don't think of smoking. Of all the injustices suffered by the poor in America, if smoking in a government subsidized apartment is the hill you want to stand on and beat your chest, then I don't even really know what to say.
It would be a war on the poor to say that you can't buy cigarettes at all if you're receiving government assistance. It's not a war on the poor to say you can't smoke in an apartment that the government owns and helps you pay for.
I'm sorry, but you sound like Melissa Harris Perry here. "You call that hard work? What about slavery?" I don't smoke, but making poor people have to go out in the cold and snow to smoke their cigarettes and even banning them from smoking on their own balconies is insane.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 01, 2015, 06:25:21 PM
I'm sorry, but you sound like Melissa Harris Perry here. "You call that hard work? What about slavery?" I don't smoke, but making poor people have to go out in the cold and snow to smoke their cigarettes and even banning them from smoking on their own balconies is insane.
1. I'm sorry, but your slavery comparison is pretty empty rhetoric. This is literally the comparison you're trying to make:
Hard work = not as bad as slavery: can't smoke in your apartment = not as bad as being homeless or hungry. It's dumb.
I would think most people in the grand scheme of things would put things like the right to a quality education, accessible and affordable healthcare and nutritious food above cigarettes.
2. Why is it we've spent so much time on "rights" and not pointed out that obvious: that smoking is one hell of an expensive habit and it sort of calls into question someone's ability to be able to afford cigarettes and the loss of a security deposit but an inability to be able to afford rent.
3. It isn't
their balcony: it's the landlord's. If the landlord says you can't smoke on it, you can't smoke on it.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 01, 2015, 03:09:34 PM
I pay 1/3 of the rent where I live. I live with the elderly, and unless someone dies or moves to a nursing home, they don't move out. The rules where I live are strictly enforced as well. But "NO SMOKING" isn't currently one of the rules, and I see no reason it should be. Any additional costs to refurbishing an apartment when a smoker moves out, should easily be covered by an increased security deposit for smokers. It is a war on the poor. You're just to much of a pussy to care.
Hmm. Or maybe I have problems to face that aren't indulgent nonsense. There is a war on the poor--this isn't part of it.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 01, 2015, 06:13:52 PM
Is it a "right" to be able to smoke in your privately-owned home? Well, smoking is legal, so sure. Is it a "right" to be able to smoke in a rented home? If your landlord says you can.
Sure, and my landlord does say I can. What makes me nervous here is that some overbearing law is going to be passed that will make everyone in the complex go smoke free, whether we are government supported or not. The free market bears the costs of this arrangement, yet it threatens my freedom as well. That answers the next large paragraph as well.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 01, 2015, 06:13:52 PMBottom line is, when it's someone else's property, they have the right to dictate what you can and can't do to their property, and you have the right to seek other accommodations.
As long as lease terms are observed on both sides, so be it. Thats the private market, what we're talking about is government regulation thats likely to overreach in many cases, such as mine. Its one thing for owners of the complex to make such rules, but its another for the government to impose them on those of us NOT on section 8.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 01, 2015, 06:13:52 PMI do understand the practical side of this. If a landlord attempts to discourage smoking indoors by requiring a security deposit and spelling out in the lease that you will forfeit that deposit if there is evidence of smoking, so be it. I get that's the way it's always been where you live, but things change.
I've noticed things change, but still see no good reason this should. You're still ignoring the larger issue of contract and properly rights, and saying the government should be allowed to override them. Again, this would be one thing in subsidized housing, where the government has to cover costs, but that's not where I am.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 01, 2015, 06:13:52 PMFact is, in virtually every state, if smoking restrictions are included in the lease, the government will back up the landlord’s rights to create a smoke-free environment. You are of course free to violate that, and they are of course free to terminate your lease.
As it should be. Please pay attention to what I actually write.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 01, 2015, 06:25:21 PM
I'm sorry, but you sound like Melissa Harris Perry here. "You call that hard work? What about slavery?" I don't smoke, but making poor people have to go out in the cold and snow to smoke their cigarettes and even banning them from smoking on their own balconies is insane.
lololol Such entitlement! Look, college kids face the same issues when they live in on-campus housing: they have to go out in the cold and snow to smoke their cigarettes. This is of course NOT a war on college students. It's putting the burden associated with smoking exactly where it should be: on the SMOKER who chooses to smoke. Smokers think they have the right to pollute the air of anyone around them. Nope, that's just entitlement bs.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 01, 2015, 06:38:53 PM
1. I'm sorry, but your slavery comparison is pretty empty rhetoric. This is literally the comparison you're trying to make:
Hard work = not as bad as slavery: can't smoke in your apartment = not as bad as being homeless or hungry. It's dumb.
I would think most people in the grand scheme of things would put things like the right to a quality education, accessible and affordable healthcare and nutritious food above cigarettes.
2. Why is it we've spent so much time on "rights" and not pointed out that obvious: that smoking is one hell of an expensive habit and it sort of calls into question someone's ability to be able to afford cigarettes and the loss of a security deposit but an inability to be able to afford rent.
3. It isn't their balcony: it's the landlord's. If the landlord says you can't smoke on it, you can't smoke on it.
This thread isn't about quality education, affordable healthcare, or nutritious food though. It's about smoking. There was no need for any of that to be brought up, just like there was no need for MHP to bring up slavery. It is beside the point that poor people have plenty of other things hurting them. Treating poor people like shit is treating poor people like shit, and that's what is happening here when the poor are forced 25 feet away from their apartment building to smoke. It's not ok to treat them like shit just because they don't own their balcony. It's none of our business whether these people choose to smoke. Yes, it can be an expensive habit, but you can also get the dirt cheap smokes for like $15 a carton. I'm not going to shame a poor person and wag my finger at them for buying a 15 or 25 dollar carton of smokes.
It's fine to say it's not your property so you have to follow the rules, but stupid rules are stupid rules and treating people like shit is treating people like shit. Just because you have the ability to treat poor people like shit, doesn't mean you should go ahead and do it.
Quote from: _Xenu_ on December 01, 2015, 07:02:34 PM
I've noticed things change, but still see no good reason this should.
Just this last week, my cousin's girlfriend's apartment complex had a fire because of a cigarette.
http://kxan.com/2015/11/24/afd-fighting-fire-at-s-austin-apartment-complex/
Just because you don't see any reason why it should change doesn't mean reasons don't exist. Yes, I get that apartments can burn down for a number of reasons, but fires started by cigarettes are 100% preventable if you don't smoke in your house.
The government also bans grills on patios due to fire safety concerns. When you live in an apartment, especially a multi-story apartment complex, your neighbors shouldn't face an increased risk of burning to death or losing everything they have because you want to smoke inside. To add to that, allowing tenants to smoke inside your building raising insurance costs. Reduced maintenance costs have already been covered. So there are plenty of reasons why a landlord would want a smoke-free building.
Quote from: _Xenu_ on December 01, 2015, 07:02:34 PMYou're still ignoring the larger issue of contract and properly rights, and saying the government should be allowed to override them. Again, this would be one thing in subsidized housing, where the government has to cover costs, but that's not where I am.
I'm not saying the government should be allowed to override them: I'm saying when the government is acting as a landlord, they should be free to set rules.
Quote from: _Xenu_ on December 01, 2015, 07:02:34 PMAs it should be. Please pay attention to what I actually write.
Pay attention to what
I write. Everything I wrote has to do with landlord/tenant relationships. It just so happens when it comes to public housing that the government is acting as a landlord.
I must admit that the more I think about his the less I really care. I certainly sympathize with the OP but I really don't care anymore and I also see the argument with the waxers but I really don't care anymore. As an ex-puffer I don't get all uptight over smokers but understand the whack a moles that do. None the less, I …really don't care.
I'M NOT SAYING THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY! I'm saying it is just anti-liberty to use their authority to do such a thing.
So smoking stinks. It doesn't stink as much as the attitude, that the poor shouldn't be allowed the pursuit of happiness in the privacy of their own home. If it were a question of whom I was having sex with, should a landlord/government be able to decide that as well? Next, forbid buying meat on food-stamps? I don't use food stamps but I would still stand up for their rights, as I have for the rights of gays. It's just different forms of personal liberty. Smoking should be defended as personal liberty as well. When dealing with Nazis - even health Nazis - you have to stand up for the freedoms of others, or they'll come for your freedoms next.
Before you get all cavalier about the price of "free money," you need to recognize that the poor don't really have a choice about accepting the low cost housing. I can't just move. Even a pillbox is double what I am paying, and as a 50 year old man, I need more than a pillbox.
I think when a lot of you think of the poor, you think of freeloaders that don't want to work. But many, if not most, are elderly people on social security. Some of which even have meager pensions. They are below the poverty line. That's where I live. With 80-year-olds, who deserve better than some self-righteous know-it-all government official telling them they have to give up smoking. The apartment where I live, was previously occupied by a smoker, and this complex has permitted smoking since it was built in 1977.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 01, 2015, 07:12:00 PM
This thread isn't about quality education, affordable healthcare, or nutritious food though. It's about smoking. There was no need for any of that to be brought up, just like there was no need for MHP to bring up slavery. It is beside the point that poor people have plenty of other things hurting them. Treating poor people like shit is treating poor people like shit, and that's what is happening here when the poor are forced 25 feet away from their apartment building to smoke. It's not ok to treat them like shit just because they don't own their balcony. It's none of our business whether these people choose to smoke. Yes, it can be an expensive habit, but you can also get the dirt cheap smokes for like $15 a carton. I'm not going to shame a poor person and wag my finger at them for buying a 15 or 25 dollar carton of smokes.
It's fine to say it's not your property so you have to follow the rules, but stupid rules are stupid rules and treating people like shit is treating people like shit. Just because you have the ability to treat poor people like shit, doesn't mean you should go ahead and do it.
Incisive comment. My smokes are $18.99 a carton (10 packs), by the way.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 02, 2015, 06:41:29 AM
Incisive comment. My smokes are $18.99 a carton (10 packs), by the way.
The Health Nazis
At first they came for the drinkers, but I didn't drink so I did nothing ...
Then they came for the tokers, but I didn't toke so I did nothing ...
Then they came for the smokers, but I didn't smoke so I did nothing ...
Then they came for the fat people, but I am naturally lean so I did nothing ...
Then they came for people with bad teeth, but I have been a toothless shit!
QuoteJust this last week, my cousin's girlfriend's apartment complex had a fire because of a cigarette.
http://kxan.com/2015/11/24/afd-fighting-fire-at-s-austin-apartment-complex/
Just because you don't see any reason why it should change doesn't mean reasons don't exist. Yes, I get that apartments can burn down for a number of reasons, but fires started by cigarettes are 100% preventable if you don't smoke in your house.
Motorcycle accidents are 100% preventable if you don't ride motorcycles. Both ways you reduce...the risk...to yourself and others.
QuoteThe government also bans grills on patios due to fire safety concerns.
Apples and oranges.
QuoteWhen you live in an apartment, especially a multi-story apartment complex, your neighbors shouldn't face an increased risk of burning to death or losing everything they have because you want to smoke inside.
The risk should be analyzed honestly. I am confident it will be a very slim risk.
QuoteTo add to that, allowing tenants to smoke inside your building raising insurance costs. Reduced maintenance costs have already been covered.
Poor overburdened landlord...I'll have to remember him this Christmas, and give him a little extra on the rent. :a035:
You do realize that section 8 housing is not actually owned by the government, but rather by private companies, who are compensated by the government. They own and maintain the housing units and, in my understanding, do it for a profit. This is why section 8 (according to my reading of Subsection G: Applicability)is exempt from the rule. My main fear is that the owner will not have read the rule, in it's entirety, and will just float along with the tide and make us smoke-free anyway.
Quote from: aitm on December 01, 2015, 08:39:27 PM
I must admit that the more I think about his the less I really care. I certainly sympathize with the OP but I really don't care anymore and I also see the argument with the waxers but I really don't care anymore. As an ex-puffer I don't get all uptight over smokers but understand the whack a moles that do. None the less, I …really don't care.
Thanks for caring, enough to let us know that you don't care. :72:
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 01, 2015, 10:31:30 AM
One more thing: no smoking within 25 feet of the structure, is patently absurd. Even if I were to concede the sanctity of my living-room, I won't concede my balcony. The outdoors is the outdoors. Whereas 8 or 10 feet from a public entrance is reasonable, restricting my balcony is not.
Where I live you can not smoke on your balcony (although I suspect my neighbors do) there is no smoking any where accept the designated smoking area by the dumpsters.
I have to laugh as I saw one tenants final fuck you after being evicted was smoking directly in front of the building.
because this is a brand new building they are extremely strict! I should find the rules and read some of the more anal ones.
not only this but you are also responsible for any of your guests smoking as they get out of their cars and walking across the parking lot with it. My ex would do this and piss me off to no end. Get your self kicked out of your own damned apartment not me out of mine!
Quote from: Dreamer on December 01, 2015, 07:02:47 PM
lololol Such entitlement! Look, college kids face the same issues when they live in on-campus housing: they have to go out in the cold and snow to smoke their cigarettes. This is of course NOT a war on college students. It's putting the burden associated with smoking exactly where it should be: on the SMOKER who chooses to smoke. Smokers think they have the right to pollute the air of anyone around them. Nope, that's just entitlement bs.
It's always "entitlement," when it's someone else's liberty. It can hardly be called "entitlement," when we're talking about my living room, where I've always been free to smoke, and never had a neighbor complain. I'm not smoking in your living room, so how am I "polluting the air of anyone" around me? I don't expect indoor public spaces to accommodate me. But outside, in the open air, or in the privacy of my apartment, I expect that my freedom should be respected.
And I'm not a college student, living with a bunch of other students, and moving out in a couple of years. I'm a long-term tenant, and my smoking affects no one but me.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 02, 2015, 09:31:27 AM
It's always "entitlement," when it's someone else's liberty. It can hardly be called "entitlement," when we're talking about my living room,
You're
renting your living room. It's not
yours. It's the apartment complex owner's.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 02, 2015, 09:31:27 AM
where I've always been free to smoke, and never had a neighbor complain. I'm not smoking in your living room, so how am I "polluting the air of anyone" around me? I don't expect indoor public spaces to accommodate me. But outside, in the open air, or in the privacy of my apartment, I expect that my freedom should be respected.
In case you haven't noticed, smoke travels. Furthermore, you don't seem to realize that tobacco smoke penetrates. Read my rant.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 02, 2015, 09:31:27 AM
And I'm not a college student, living with a bunch of other students, and moving out in a couple of years. I'm a long-term tenant, and my smoking affects no one but me.
I'm sure that you have no intention of moving out soon. Shit happens, though.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 02, 2015, 07:49:48 AM
Thanks for caring, enough to let us know that you don't care. :72:
yeah..sorry bout that..
There is a disagreement of property vs society. Americans have no society, they are only individuals who do anything they want to anyone they want. Except not all Americans are created equal, or at least end up as equal. Some people are bigger assholes than other people, and as such exert more or less impact on the others. In pure capitalism, everyone are equal assholes ... but that doesn't correspond with any reality. There are always bigger assholes ... as any gunslinger will tell you. So you ability to own something, depends on your relative social ass-hole-ness. The greatest assholes have the most stuff. They will tell you this is because of their ... woo woo merit. This naturally conflicts with the average have-nots ... the middle class ... and the inevitable below-average have-not conflict with both. The natural tendency is for one monkey to end up with all the bananas ... and the remaining monkeys, who haven't starved to death, are out to kill him.
Look, I'm certainly no fan of the government, but this is a simple property rights matter. What some are trying to do is carve out an exception in property rights saying they don't apply in certain cases.
That's why I came down on a side that surprises some. I see the issue as "why the heck is the government the landlord?" instead of "the landlord is setting property usage rules." Since, unfortunately, the government is the landlord, the government gets to act like a landlord.
If you're a low-income smoker, I have a solution with a 100% guarantee of saving you money:
[spoiler=You ready for this?]
QUIT FUCKING SMOKING!
[/spoiler]
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on December 22, 2015, 12:06:15 AM
Look, I'm certainly no fan of the government, but this is a simple property rights matter. What some are trying to do is carve out an exception in property rights saying they don't apply in certain cases.
That's why I came down on a side that surprises some. I see the issue as "why the heck is the government the landlord?" instead of "the landlord is setting property usage rules." Since, unfortunately, the government is the landlord, the government gets to act like a landlord.
The government ultimately owns all the property and all the money (and indirectly all the things bought with money) ... they are only loaning it to you. Americans are so gullible. Land-lord is the correct word ... so British ;-) If the government, for example, decides to manipulate the banks into charging negative interest ... this is a tax, but also the government simply taking back what is theirs. You think you worked for some money, and you can save some of it ... but you are very wrong.
But yes, I agree it is best when the government doesn't directly landlord ... but the reverse of that is privatization ... and that is very corrupt process too. This privatization went on, every time the government conquered more Native territory. The land speculators acting as agents of the government, moved in, even before the pioneers. Pure privatization is anarchist anyway ... in all things moderation is best.
I am as against smoking as the next non-smoker. And I don't believe in political rights or other 18th century bull shit. But can we check our privilege? Middle/upper class citizens telling lower class citizens how to live their lives ... because we are so much more meritorious than they are? How British class conscious is that? But then some of our posters are actual Brits ... no insult intended.
A question: If your body odor was a pervasive as your cigarette smoke do you think people would have a right to complain?
It's easy to tell some one to quit smoking but unless you've suffered from any kind of addiction you would know that it's not that simple or easy.
as for the government being the landlord. The government in many cases is not the land lord. You still have a land lord but the government pays part of or all of your rent through a voucher system.
Now my case is different since I'm in a hud owned and run apartment building so my landlord is the government but that is not always the case.
I don't see how hud can enforce this rule though if the recipient is in a smoking building. And as long as the smoker doesn't have kids I could give two craps if they smoke at home or not.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 22, 2015, 12:14:48 AM
If you're a low-income smoker, I have a solution with a 100% guarantee of saving you money:
[spoiler=You ready for this?]QUIT FUCKING SMOKING!
[/spoiler]
It's extremely hard to quit smoking. Just like it's extremely hard to lose weight. It's not realistic to judge people like that.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 22, 2015, 09:05:27 AM
It's extremely hard to quit smoking. Just like it's extremely hard to lose weight.
True, but you don't see me bitching and moaning about how inconvenient the world is for fat people.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 22, 2015, 09:05:27 AM
It's extremely hard to quit smoking. Just like it's extremely hard to lose weight. It's not realistic to judge people like that.
I quit smoking cold turkey in 1988. It was harder than kicking the over-enthusiastic pain relief program the Navy got me on back in 1972, but I was ready and determined to quit. Two weeks of diminishing withdrawal symptoms and I was over the hump. Today that saves me about $60/week. Plus I wouldn't be with my current wife if I smoked.
Nobody can quit smoking until they want to, not even with the chemical aids that make it a lot easier today. The only reason people smoke now is because they want to keep smoking.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2015, 07:07:36 AM
A question: If your body odor was a pervasive as your cigarette smoke do you think people would have a right to complain?
I smoke cigars. And tobacco smell is far less offensive than body odor. Even to a non-smoker, generally.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2015, 09:21:20 AM
I quit smoking cold turkey in 1988. It was harder than kicking the over-enthusiastic pain relief program the Navy got me on back in 1972, but I was ready and determined to quit. Two weeks of diminishing withdrawal symptoms and I was over the hump. Today that saves me about $60/week. Plus I wouldn't be with my current wife if I smoked.
Nobody can quit smoking until they want to, not even with the chemical aids that make it a lot easier today. The only reason people smoke now is because they want to keep smoking.
I have also quit smoking, more than once, so I also understand how hard it is.
Chemical aids cost money and require additional resources like transportation and medical care. Cigarette companies specifically target low income people and strategize to keep them addicted.
It's very easy to judge people until you are in their shoes.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2015, 09:21:20 AM
I quit smoking cold turkey in 1988. It was harder than kicking the over-enthusiastic pain relief program the Navy got me on back in 1972, but I was ready and determined to quit. Two weeks of diminishing withdrawal symptoms and I was over the hump. Today that saves me about $60/week. Plus I wouldn't be with my current wife if I smoked.
Nobody can quit smoking until they want to, not even with the chemical aids that make it a lot easier today. The only reason people smoke now is because they want to keep smoking.
I've smoked for 35 years, and I want to keep smoking.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 22, 2015, 09:32:31 AM
I smoke cigars. And tobacco smell is far less offensive than body odor. Even to a non-smoker, generally.
I can tolerate body odor. I have to leave the room when I smell tobacco. All non-smokers I know are the same way.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2015, 09:21:20 AM
I quit smoking cold turkey in 1988. It was harder than kicking the over-enthusiastic pain relief program the Navy got me on back in 1972, but I was ready and determined to quit. Two weeks of diminishing withdrawal symptoms and I was over the hump. Today that saves me about $60/week. Plus I wouldn't be with my current wife if I smoked.
Nobody can quit smoking until they want to, not even with the chemical aids that make it a lot easier today. The only reason people smoke now is because they want to keep smoking.
well not to be mean but it's not that easy for every one. I quit also cold turkey but that's only because they ruined my favorite cigarette. It was easy for me to quit after that because I no longer liked the cigarettes. But for other people with addictive personalities they can not just quit with out help. Some times not even then either.
I also want to note that cigarettes have a lot more chemicals in them today that they did not have back then. Many of them designed to make the cigarettes even more addictive than before.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 22, 2015, 09:34:57 AM
I have also quit smoking, more than once, so I also understand how hard it is.
Chemical aids cost money and require additional resources like transportation and medical care. Cigarette companies specifically target low income people and strategize to keep them addicted.
It's very easy to judge people until you are in their shoes.
Wow, I didn't know I was that well off.
Quote from: doorknob on December 22, 2015, 10:28:50 AM
well not to be mean but it's not that easy for every one.
I never said it was easy. I just said I wanted it more than I wanted to keep smoking.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 22, 2015, 09:34:57 AM
Chemical aids cost money and require additional resources like transportation and medical care.
They can afford to buy cigarettes but not stop-smoking aids? Got some hard numbers to support that?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on December 22, 2015, 09:32:31 AM
I smoke cigars. And tobacco smell is far less offensive than body odor. Even to a non-smoker, generally.
And cigars smell like smoldering sweat socks. I doubt this is news to you.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2015, 11:05:49 AM
Wow, I didn't know I was that well off.
Come on. Don't be obtuse. I am not trying to be adversarial, so please try not to get defensive about it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2015, 11:12:36 AM
They can afford to buy cigarettes but not stop-smoking aids? Got some hard numbers to support that?
That isn't what I said.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2015, 11:20:46 AM
And cigars smell like smoldering sweat socks. I doubt this is news to you.
Agree with everything you've posted. I hate the stink of cigars. Sit on watch for six hours with a CPO with a big fat Cuban stogie (bought in Scotland) and go away fucking nauseous after. I smoked for a few years, but apparently don't have an addictive personality. Never been addicted to anything.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 22, 2015, 11:53:50 AM
Come on. Don't be obtuse. I am not trying to be adversarial, so please try not to get defensive about it.
Then be less condescending to avoid confusion, please.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 22, 2015, 11:54:16 AM
That isn't what I said.
You gave an EXCUSE for not using stop-smoking aids. Addicts use excuses to avoid facing up to the problem. (I don't know or care if you smoke, that's a general observation.)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2015, 12:11:26 PM
Then be less condescending to avoid confusion, please.
I don't think we disagree fundamentally, smoking is terrible, but you seem to want to pick a fight. I don't mean to be condescending, what did I say that makes me seem that way?
My point: It's not fair to put judgments on people you don't know. That's all my message is.
I didn't give any excuse for anything. Just trying to present a different angle. Besides all of that, not everyone WANTS to quit smoking. Not everyone will do what you think they should do. People judge each other way too much IMO and it results in so many larger problems.
I do not smoke. I did when I was younger, I quit about 20 years ago for the last time.
"It's very easy to judge people until you are in their shoes."
What the fuck do you know about my shoes?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 22, 2015, 12:44:37 PM
"It's very easy to judge people until you are in their shoes."
What the fuck do you know about my shoes?
Haha. :razz: