Kansas City Bans Smoking In Your Own Home If You're Poor

[yaddy306]

There have been no rants or personal attacks.

...other than one poster calling some posters "ignorant", I tend to agree it's been pretty civil.

 

[numbersix]

We have some dissenting opinions, but have remained entirely civil and have kept on topic of tobacco legislation

+1

I am with six on this issue when it comes to those that chose not to work. sorry but your money needs to be spent on more important things.

I don't think that was me (or maybe I am not understanding what you mean). I'm in the camp that even if living in assisted housing, the gov't shouldn't be infringing on your right to enjoy a legal hobby, habit or object of enjoyment.
IMHO, poor people deserve a certain quality of life just as much as the rich do. And I am not talking about over indulging, drunks or drug addicts or smoking a carton of cigarettes every day. I am thinking of those people, like us, who enjoy the occasional drink or the occasional smoke, like a cigar or pipe. These may be considered "luxuries" by some but a life without any of these extras can be pretty dismal for the average person.
I also don't consider most of the poor today as "taking advantage" of the taxpayers. Right now the cards are heavily stacked against the poor and middle class - it's an unbalanced system that favors the rich (and is only getting worse.)

 

[simnettpratt]

If those who 'take advantage of taxpayers' don't deserve luxuries, we should ban smoking for politicians. In their own damn homes.
In my Valujet 592 post above, I personally saw the FAA give a hotel a million taxpayer dollars for about $350,000 worth of rooms. $650,000 would buy a lot of cigarettes.

 

[brian64]

If you're American (or British or Irish or French or German) then your government continues to subsidize the likes of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, et al. Virtually free money for these institutions from the Fed and the ECB has cost savers and pensioners hundreds of billions of dollars, give or take, each of the last 5 years. Should Jamie Dimon have a yacht? Should Lloyd Blankfein be allowed to smoke a stogie? Good questions.

Well said pitchfork (and LOL at the “welfare queen” pic). Those who have been deemed “too big to jail fail” (regardless of how much blatantly criminal activity they have been involved in) are not only allowed to spend the money however they please, but also have a virtually unlimited expense account paid for by the taxpayers. If any of them are smokers, you can bet your bottom federal reserve note that they partake of only the very finest premium, luxury tobacco. It’s amazing how welfare for the above-the-law, super-wealthy banksters doesn’t seem to bother people nearly as much as welfare for the poor.

 

[daveinlax]

If those who 'take advantage of taxpayers' don't deserve luxuries, we should ban smoking for politicians. In their own damn homes.
In my Valujet 592 post above, I personally saw the FAA give a hotel a million taxpayer dollars for about $350,000 worth of rooms. $650,000 would buy a lot of cigarettes.

Or so you say.

Generally the Feds get a rock bottom price on hotel rooms and they bid out group rates for conferences. The world of even mid level corporate travel is where money is not an issue.

I'll bet most of the politicians rent no smoking places in DC and their wives probably don't let them smoking in their own homes back in their districts. 8O

 

[simnettpratt]

Or so you say.

Yes dave. I do say.

 

[woodsroad]

"We seem to want to dictate to - nay, even punish - those who are poor,"

Yes, and on the whole, that is shameful.

"... perhaps because we see it is something they were responsible for."

Perhaps, but not bloody likely.

"Sometimes they are responsible, but often they are just the victims of bad situations."

Often those "bad situations" are a result of compounding bad decisions. The psychology of wealth/lack thereof is a very interesting one.
I went on a bit of a rant last week on FB about the Minimum Wage. As you might imagine, I have some opinions on the matter. I'll spare you the rant, but the distillation of the resolution, for me, is this:
The only government policy that benefits low skill/low wage labor is full employment. The only government policy that will greatly reduce the number of people stuck in low wage/low skill jobs is quality education. Education is just one of many vital initiatives that government, especially large city governments, have failed to deliver to those who need it most. In short, government has perpetuated poverty.
The next question is: Why?

 

[simnettpratt]

Tobacco legislation my brothers, tobacco legislation! Al's eyeing his big red Closed button right now

 

[woodsroad]

Al.

"splain me Al.

 

[simnettpratt]

I'm not sure if you're asking Al or me. If you're asking me to 'splain what Al is, Al's the mod ssjones, and if we stray from tobacco legislation to minimum wage and 2nd Amendment stuff, we'll get closed!

 

[woodsroad]

See, I'm think big and nefarious, like Al Smith or Al Gore.

 

[peckinpahhombre]

Did someone up there actually cite John Lott? Perhaps the most widely discredited academic in the last 30 years? :rofl: Is there a meeting being held at the Flat Earth Society that I didn't hear about? That was too funny Trailboss.

 

[Perique]

OMG, here we go.

 

[simnettpratt]

Tobacco folks, 2nd Amendment stuff is not allowed here.

 

[cobguy]

big and nefarious

... the name of my next band ... Thanks!

 

[murf]

I could understand not allowing smoking WITHIN gov't housing, but on the entire property? Some good points were brought up already, like the cost of cleaning a home that the previous occupant was a smoker, would cost too much (man hours and money). But to ban smoking on the entire property, in the open air? Ridiculous.
They could use the argument of keeping the property cleaner (cigarette butts on the ground), but wouldn't ashtrays and "butt-tainers" take care of that? It's like when I go outside to have a pipe, I stick the used matches back in the box so as not to litter. It would be nice to have a spot to put them.
When I was in Russia, there were at least garbage cans attached to lightposts that would be conveniently placed enough so you wouldn't have to walk too far. People just rolled the tobacco out of their cigs and dropped the butts in the nearest can. And smoking was allowed inside most restaurants, cafes, and bars. But everyone I was with always asked permission of everyone at the table if they minded before they lit up.

 

[simnettpratt]

Aaaand back to tobacco. Thanks boss. Boy that Dunhill Nightcap sure is tasty. Wish I could smoke it if I lived in Kansas City subsidized housing, at least outside like murf said!

 

[novicemaker]

Hey merf thanks for the comment, i think we should all just stay on topic but i wholly agree that poor people(im not by all means wealthy but my bills are paid with my own money) should be able to have the freedom to chose. Now for the butt can, i have worked in big office buildings, sec 8 housing buildings and such and i hardly ever saw anyone take the time to put the butts or ash anywhere but on the ground. Unless it was mandated by upper management(like one building i worked near). People unless told to do so will choose not to even if they are right next to it or walking past it. You sir are one of the few good ones that does think.
Now as for this topic i used to live in low income housing i wasnt blessed with two parents. So i understand that sometimes the government can help, but most times unless you are of a minority or a race thats not white you are given very little help or have to go threw endless hoops to get help. i still stand by the fact that if you dont own the house then you agreed to follow the owners will for the unit. Now i do think its crazy to ban smoking on the outside of the house thats a completely stupid idea.
One last thing seeing six comment, so to clear up my thoughts a little. I think those that cant afford to pay for the basics shouldn't waste money on booze or tobacco. Now if you have a good grasp of your financial ends and still live in gov housing because you chose to then by all means have a nice drink or smoke just keep the priorities straight. roof over head, bed to sleep on and food to eat and your golden. I am family man and if i cant provide at lest those things then i feel i need to work harder so my family can live happy and well feed. i am 25 so i am by no means an expert on life but i have been the man of the house since i was 5 and started working fulltime at 14 and held a fulltime job all the way threw school and graduated with high marks and 3.7gpa in highschool and college

 

[daveinlax]

but most times unless you are of a minority or a race thats not white you are given very little help or have to go threw endless hoops to get help.

I'll bet the money spent on 40/50 year old white guys that cash a SSDI check because the economy passed them by and it pays better than a low wage job is close to money spent on the "others". I see this every day in my neighborhood, the projects clear out with mostly women with young children going to low wage jobs and then there's the guys in payed off single family houses who got layed off/outsourced from very good jobs at Trane Co and ended up with disability claims. 8O

 

[simnettpratt]

I see this every day in my neighborhood

Or so you say.