Dear Fellow Pipefans:
Data's Calabash here, and as I'm quite likely to have to live in a Section 8 housing development in future years (I'm 57, going on 58 next February), when my ailing mother here at home might likely need to go into managed care sometime in the future from her own advancing age - and me qualifying for the Sec. 8 housing, from me having a bad upper left leg that prevents me from working ANY sort of job that requires standing for long periods - I had a "chill of dread" oscillate along my spine when seeing THIS development that I'd first noticed on the "news-crawl" on the morning of November 12th, 2015 courtesy of MSNBC...
"Separately, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a proposed rule that would force public housing agencies to limit smoking in developments.It would ban smoking in publicly funded apartments or houses, offices and outdoor areas in those developments.
'In addition to protecting non-smokers, smoke-free public housing policies would encourage smokers living in affected properties to quit smoking,' said Chris Hansen, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network."
What sort of tea are these guys sipping, anyway?
I KNOW there are types of Section 8 housing that (as one example, for a Bay State resident like yours truly) are owned by towns in Massachusetts, and ARE more likely to be subject to local restrictions such as being smoke-free, depending on the town (Boston, MA is a huge offender against personal choice here, courtesy of its current mayor — who's also banned OUTDOOR smoking in all Boston parks)...there are also privately-run Section 8 housing complexes that are available throughout the Bay State, and from what I gather, SOME of these could currently be a bit friendlier for our indoor briar enjoyment, within a privately-run Section 8 place we might need to be living in.
There COULD be some sort of civil rights overstep involved with all this...firstly, the "publicly-funded" bit that's mentioned could exempt privately-owned Section 8s; secondly, indoors-location public offices for such facilities would already BE smoke-free (in MA, since 2002), and clearly among the places that everyone (pipe and cigar-fans, as well as the "damned butt addicts") accepts as having to BE smoke-free to simply be fair to everyone. I've been used to exactly that sort of situation since 1985, when smoke-free workplaces finally shoved the "addicts" outdoors, and made it easier to accept enjoying my briars in my car; also knowing that I wouldn't have to tolerate the "crude-oil stench" of cigarette-addicts' smolderings and ashtrays ever again in a workplace.
But the OUTDOOR areas?...that scatterbrained idea starts to sound like Boston's mayor again!
For the current Boston mayor, if a public park in a place like Boston was holding some sort of public event, then a temporary smoking ban during the event's timeframe would be easily understandable. But the 24/7 restriction for all outdoor parks that went into force not so long ago - as well as for what seems to be all of Boston's Section 8 facilities - is simply too much to ever understand any "complete" degree of sense behind it.
True, the often-messy attitudes that some of the more uncaring cigarette-addicts can easily have sometimes, concerning their surroundings can make it much easier to pass such restrictions, just to keep their stenchy litter (butts, etc) out of sight. For pipefans, though, letting the Housing and Urban Development department plan, as they've stated is a priority of theirs, become a reality with places like Section 8 housing facilities going smoke-free...even OUTDOORS...though, is devastating for many of us who might need to live in them for some reason.
I'd like to find out if there's any way to "comment" on HUD's latest attempt in non-sensical "antis" legislation - the FDA itself, as other threads have stated previously here, certainly is no better!
Yours Sincerely,
Data's Calabash
Based on MSNBC posting found here, in concluding paragraphs of article
Data's Calabash here, and as I'm quite likely to have to live in a Section 8 housing development in future years (I'm 57, going on 58 next February), when my ailing mother here at home might likely need to go into managed care sometime in the future from her own advancing age - and me qualifying for the Sec. 8 housing, from me having a bad upper left leg that prevents me from working ANY sort of job that requires standing for long periods - I had a "chill of dread" oscillate along my spine when seeing THIS development that I'd first noticed on the "news-crawl" on the morning of November 12th, 2015 courtesy of MSNBC...
"Separately, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a proposed rule that would force public housing agencies to limit smoking in developments.It would ban smoking in publicly funded apartments or houses, offices and outdoor areas in those developments.
'In addition to protecting non-smokers, smoke-free public housing policies would encourage smokers living in affected properties to quit smoking,' said Chris Hansen, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network."
What sort of tea are these guys sipping, anyway?
I KNOW there are types of Section 8 housing that (as one example, for a Bay State resident like yours truly) are owned by towns in Massachusetts, and ARE more likely to be subject to local restrictions such as being smoke-free, depending on the town (Boston, MA is a huge offender against personal choice here, courtesy of its current mayor — who's also banned OUTDOOR smoking in all Boston parks)...there are also privately-run Section 8 housing complexes that are available throughout the Bay State, and from what I gather, SOME of these could currently be a bit friendlier for our indoor briar enjoyment, within a privately-run Section 8 place we might need to be living in.
There COULD be some sort of civil rights overstep involved with all this...firstly, the "publicly-funded" bit that's mentioned could exempt privately-owned Section 8s; secondly, indoors-location public offices for such facilities would already BE smoke-free (in MA, since 2002), and clearly among the places that everyone (pipe and cigar-fans, as well as the "damned butt addicts") accepts as having to BE smoke-free to simply be fair to everyone. I've been used to exactly that sort of situation since 1985, when smoke-free workplaces finally shoved the "addicts" outdoors, and made it easier to accept enjoying my briars in my car; also knowing that I wouldn't have to tolerate the "crude-oil stench" of cigarette-addicts' smolderings and ashtrays ever again in a workplace.
But the OUTDOOR areas?...that scatterbrained idea starts to sound like Boston's mayor again!
For the current Boston mayor, if a public park in a place like Boston was holding some sort of public event, then a temporary smoking ban during the event's timeframe would be easily understandable. But the 24/7 restriction for all outdoor parks that went into force not so long ago - as well as for what seems to be all of Boston's Section 8 facilities - is simply too much to ever understand any "complete" degree of sense behind it.
True, the often-messy attitudes that some of the more uncaring cigarette-addicts can easily have sometimes, concerning their surroundings can make it much easier to pass such restrictions, just to keep their stenchy litter (butts, etc) out of sight. For pipefans, though, letting the Housing and Urban Development department plan, as they've stated is a priority of theirs, become a reality with places like Section 8 housing facilities going smoke-free...even OUTDOORS...though, is devastating for many of us who might need to live in them for some reason.
I'd like to find out if there's any way to "comment" on HUD's latest attempt in non-sensical "antis" legislation - the FDA itself, as other threads have stated previously here, certainly is no better!
Yours Sincerely,
Data's Calabash
Based on MSNBC posting found here, in concluding paragraphs of article
