Last week we asked: Do you agree with the York Housing Authority's decision to ban smoking in its public housing units?
Yes, I agree with the York Housing Authority's decision to ban smoking in public housing units. My husband was 53 years old when he died from emphysema from smoking. Also, these people are spending oodles of money for cigarettes that they should be using elsewhere in their life. If you allow them and help them to break their smoking addiction, give them that option before you would throw them out of the housing units. I think smoking is very hard to quit, but it is definitely for their best interests.
RONNIE SMITH
RED LION
I do not agree with the ban on smoking. At the meetings on June 12 and 13 a suggestion was made to charge a security deposit for smokers. The speaker said it costs five times more to clean a smoker's apartment; this is not true. All apartments, all of them, get painted and rug replaced when someone moves out. The speaker also said the smoke travels through the vents. What vents? Are the air conditioning and heat going through these supposed vents also? We live here because we have nowhere to go for the rent we pay. It's great that housing helps the elderly and handicapped people. Why can't they think of smoking as a handicap? Believe me, most of us would quit if we could, but after 52 years, it's impossible. By smoking in our own apartments, it doesn't affect anyone but ourselves.
JANET KAUFFMAN
YORK TOWNSHIP
I don't endorse smoking, and I quit smoking, myself, over 20 years ago. I don't think the government has any business in what do to with their own residents. These are poor people and most of them get some satisfaction from smoking, and knowing their habits, I'd just think it'd be a difficult thing to do. I think they have the right to smoke if they so desire, even if it is ruining their health, which it is.
ANDREW P. SMITH
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP.
On the no-smoking ban, I think people should be allowed to smoke where they want, but if housing has to ban it, I guess they will. I mean, as long as they sell cigarettes, people are going to smoke. I stopped smoking and I'm glad I did.
EDITH LOBIANCO
DALLASTOWN
I don't think you should ban smoking in the York Housing Authorities. What else do these older people have to look forward except smoking? Some of them can't even get out of their apartment, and I think they should be able to smoke.
BARBARA LABOUNTY
DOVER TOWNSHIP
Since most of the people living there are elderly or kids, maybe it would be best to stop the smoking. Also, at over $40 a carton and $5-$6 a pack, how can they afford it? To keep the elderly and kids healthy, stop the smoking. Besides, what would Uncle Sam do without all the money he's making on these cigarettes now? Think about it. Taxes are out of this world.
BILL MOORE
PENN TOWNSHIP
I've never lived in public housing, but I'm familiar with the type of people that administer the rules and regulations in such places, and they are generally pretty intolerant and narrow-minded. I have a feeling the ranks of the homeless are going to swell thanks to the micromanagement of people's health. I wish they would pay more attention to the psychological well-being and less attention to toeing these P.C. lines that everybody seems to fear. I wonder if they even asked the people in the building what they thought about it?
DAVID BUSER
YORK TOWNSHIP
I do not agree with the housing authorities banning smoking in your own apartment or in any of the units.
ROBERT LEAS
YORK TOWNSHIP
I agree with the Housing Authority. The property owner and landlord may set the rules for tenants as they see fit. So as long as the rules do not violate the rights of a protected class (race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status) the Housing Authority is breaking no laws and certainly not violating anyone's constitutional rights. If the tenants don't like the rules of the landlord, perhaps they should move.
TED VENTRE
DOVER TOWNSHIP
I applaud the decision of the Housing Authority to ban smoking in subsidized housing. I'm sure those residents feel they have a right to self-determination, but not when they are doing it at the expense of everyone else. If they have that much disposable income, maybe their housing contribution needs to be higher. We subsidize their housing, their food stamps and when the smoking starts to take its toll on their bodies, we'll also be subsidizing their health care for treating their heart attacks, strokes or cancer. The least they can do is take as good care of themselves as we are trying to do for them.
SUZANNE PICCOLO
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP.
I strongly agree with the York Housing Authority's decision to ban smoking in its public housing units. Why should they even want to smoke? They don't have money to provide their own housing since they need help from the government (working people) to provide a roof over their heads. Cigarettes are very expensive and is a want, a habit, and very unhealthy for you. Chances are if they are getting aid to find housing they are also on medical assistance. We working people then will have to pay to get them medical help when they get cancer or can't breathe from the cigarettes. If you ask me, the Housing Authority is looking out for them. The Housing Authority is also trying to save themselves money by not having to pay for maintenance personnel to clean up all the cigarette butts that people are too lazy to put in the trash. The ground is the quickest and easiest way to dispose of the butts. I know this for a fact because you see it all the time. People throw them out their car windows, on the ground before entering buildings, and just on the ground to get rid of them when they are done smoking them. This is definitely one of the things that someone on welfare or public assistance can do without and spend their (working people's) money more wisely.
TERRY SWEITZER
MACHESTER TOWNSHIP
It'll just take a moment until I light my next cigarette. OK, Ms. Peterson of York Housing Authority, are no constitutional protections for smokers, how about liberty and the pursuit of happiness? A stretch? No, nicotine is a legal substance. Tobacco is a supportive crop for many. Those who wish to stop smoking use nicotine products to aid. The taxes paid by smokers probably account for a large percentage of your salary. I'm 73, I've smoked since I was a kid and no, it did not stunt my growth. That was the only cautionary against cigarettes at the time. Grandparents and parents smoked. It was more unusual to know a non-smoker. It was an age of tolerance. As in no soda and fat "police," etc. The earliest days of television featured dancing cigarette packs. Advertising flourished. During World War II, "smoke 'em if ya got 'em" was the direct order. Businesses furnished ash trays for anyone's desk. No outcasts huddling outdoors to have a smoke break and wasting company time. Cars were built with ashtrays front and back. There was an onus among some that smoking in public wasn't "lady like." Smokers have been discriminated against for many years. Public housing might have the authority to ban smoking, but one's home, public or private, should be one's castle no matter how humble or grand. Aromatic, pleasure and respect for those preferring not to smoke ... I flick my BIC to you.
CONSTANCE
SHEELY-GOOD
YORK
In answer to Shelly Peterson's challenge ("There are no constitutional protections for smokers. I challenge you to find it"), the Constitution of the United States offers the following:
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If Ms. Peterson wishes to enact a smoking ban, it must include all other activities involving lit objects such as candles or incense, otherwise it discriminates against a select group of people performing an action which is politically and socially unpopular.
The Supreme Court of the United States has also held that all have freedom in their homes to do what they like, unless such action harms the property or is an illegal act. Since cigarettes, incense and candles all emit fumes and have the capacity to burn a piece of property if not used properly, again, this is an illegal form of discrimination unless all objects that are used by burning are also outlawed.
Unless Ms. Peterson wishes a (literal) federal case to be made of this, I suggest that she either include the things listed above or rescind the smoking ban.
The former, however, is also unconstitutional. For the sake of brevity, I will not explain this at this time.
DALE LEE MASTERS
YORK
Yes I do. Smoking is not only a fire hazard but a serious health hazard. Those of us who choose to keep our bodies free of toxic substances should not have to breathe cigarette, cigar or pipe smoke. Our safety should not be jeopardized. We should not have to pay higher insurance premiums to cover the increased medical expense. And we shouldn't have to pick up the butts in order to keep our properties neat. It's about time we all decide to live consciously. That means making choices that bless ourselves, everyone else, and all of God's creation, too.
WILLA LEFEVER
NORTH CODORUS TWP.
Yes, I agree with the York Housing Authority's decision to ban smoking in public housing units. My husband was 53 years old when he died from emphysema from smoking. Also, these people are spending oodles of money for cigarettes that they should be using elsewhere in their life. If you allow them and help them to break their smoking addiction, give them that option before you would throw them out of the housing units. I think smoking is very hard to quit, but it is definitely for their best interests.
RONNIE SMITH
RED LION
I do not agree with the ban on smoking. At the meetings on June 12 and 13 a suggestion was made to charge a security deposit for smokers. The speaker said it costs five times more to clean a smoker's apartment; this is not true. All apartments, all of them, get painted and rug replaced when someone moves out. The speaker also said the smoke travels through the vents. What vents? Are the air conditioning and heat going through these supposed vents also? We live here because we have nowhere to go for the rent we pay. It's great that housing helps the elderly and handicapped people. Why can't they think of smoking as a handicap? Believe me, most of us would quit if we could, but after 52 years, it's impossible. By smoking in our own apartments, it doesn't affect anyone but ourselves.
JANET KAUFFMAN
YORK TOWNSHIP
I don't endorse smoking, and I quit smoking, myself, over 20 years ago. I don't think the government has any business in what do to with their own residents. These are poor people and most of them get some satisfaction from smoking, and knowing their habits, I'd just think it'd be a difficult thing to do. I think they have the right to smoke if they so desire, even if it is ruining their health, which it is.
ANDREW P. SMITH
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP.
On the no-smoking ban, I think people should be allowed to smoke where they want, but if housing has to ban it, I guess they will. I mean, as long as they sell cigarettes, people are going to smoke. I stopped smoking and I'm glad I did.
EDITH LOBIANCO
DALLASTOWN
I don't think you should ban smoking in the York Housing Authorities. What else do these older people have to look forward except smoking? Some of them can't even get out of their apartment, and I think they should be able to smoke.
BARBARA LABOUNTY
DOVER TOWNSHIP
Since most of the people living there are elderly or kids, maybe it would be best to stop the smoking. Also, at over $40 a carton and $5-$6 a pack, how can they afford it? To keep the elderly and kids healthy, stop the smoking. Besides, what would Uncle Sam do without all the money he's making on these cigarettes now? Think about it. Taxes are out of this world.
BILL MOORE
PENN TOWNSHIP
I've never lived in public housing, but I'm familiar with the type of people that administer the rules and regulations in such places, and they are generally pretty intolerant and narrow-minded. I have a feeling the ranks of the homeless are going to swell thanks to the micromanagement of people's health. I wish they would pay more attention to the psychological well-being and less attention to toeing these P.C. lines that everybody seems to fear. I wonder if they even asked the people in the building what they thought about it?
DAVID BUSER
YORK TOWNSHIP
I do not agree with the housing authorities banning smoking in your own apartment or in any of the units.
ROBERT LEAS
YORK TOWNSHIP
I agree with the Housing Authority. The property owner and landlord may set the rules for tenants as they see fit. So as long as the rules do not violate the rights of a protected class (race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status) the Housing Authority is breaking no laws and certainly not violating anyone's constitutional rights. If the tenants don't like the rules of the landlord, perhaps they should move.
TED VENTRE
DOVER TOWNSHIP
I applaud the decision of the Housing Authority to ban smoking in subsidized housing. I'm sure those residents feel they have a right to self-determination, but not when they are doing it at the expense of everyone else. If they have that much disposable income, maybe their housing contribution needs to be higher. We subsidize their housing, their food stamps and when the smoking starts to take its toll on their bodies, we'll also be subsidizing their health care for treating their heart attacks, strokes or cancer. The least they can do is take as good care of themselves as we are trying to do for them.
SUZANNE PICCOLO
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP.
I strongly agree with the York Housing Authority's decision to ban smoking in its public housing units. Why should they even want to smoke? They don't have money to provide their own housing since they need help from the government (working people) to provide a roof over their heads. Cigarettes are very expensive and is a want, a habit, and very unhealthy for you. Chances are if they are getting aid to find housing they are also on medical assistance. We working people then will have to pay to get them medical help when they get cancer or can't breathe from the cigarettes. If you ask me, the Housing Authority is looking out for them. The Housing Authority is also trying to save themselves money by not having to pay for maintenance personnel to clean up all the cigarette butts that people are too lazy to put in the trash. The ground is the quickest and easiest way to dispose of the butts. I know this for a fact because you see it all the time. People throw them out their car windows, on the ground before entering buildings, and just on the ground to get rid of them when they are done smoking them. This is definitely one of the things that someone on welfare or public assistance can do without and spend their (working people's) money more wisely.
TERRY SWEITZER
MACHESTER TOWNSHIP
It'll just take a moment until I light my next cigarette. OK, Ms. Peterson of York Housing Authority, are no constitutional protections for smokers, how about liberty and the pursuit of happiness? A stretch? No, nicotine is a legal substance. Tobacco is a supportive crop for many. Those who wish to stop smoking use nicotine products to aid. The taxes paid by smokers probably account for a large percentage of your salary. I'm 73, I've smoked since I was a kid and no, it did not stunt my growth. That was the only cautionary against cigarettes at the time. Grandparents and parents smoked. It was more unusual to know a non-smoker. It was an age of tolerance. As in no soda and fat "police," etc. The earliest days of television featured dancing cigarette packs. Advertising flourished. During World War II, "smoke 'em if ya got 'em" was the direct order. Businesses furnished ash trays for anyone's desk. No outcasts huddling outdoors to have a smoke break and wasting company time. Cars were built with ashtrays front and back. There was an onus among some that smoking in public wasn't "lady like." Smokers have been discriminated against for many years. Public housing might have the authority to ban smoking, but one's home, public or private, should be one's castle no matter how humble or grand. Aromatic, pleasure and respect for those preferring not to smoke ... I flick my BIC to you.
CONSTANCE
SHEELY-GOOD
YORK
In answer to Shelly Peterson's challenge ("There are no constitutional protections for smokers. I challenge you to find it"), the Constitution of the United States offers the following:
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If Ms. Peterson wishes to enact a smoking ban, it must include all other activities involving lit objects such as candles or incense, otherwise it discriminates against a select group of people performing an action which is politically and socially unpopular.
The Supreme Court of the United States has also held that all have freedom in their homes to do what they like, unless such action harms the property or is an illegal act. Since cigarettes, incense and candles all emit fumes and have the capacity to burn a piece of property if not used properly, again, this is an illegal form of discrimination unless all objects that are used by burning are also outlawed.
Unless Ms. Peterson wishes a (literal) federal case to be made of this, I suggest that she either include the things listed above or rescind the smoking ban.
The former, however, is also unconstitutional. For the sake of brevity, I will not explain this at this time.
DALE LEE MASTERS
YORK
Yes I do. Smoking is not only a fire hazard but a serious health hazard. Those of us who choose to keep our bodies free of toxic substances should not have to breathe cigarette, cigar or pipe smoke. Our safety should not be jeopardized. We should not have to pay higher insurance premiums to cover the increased medical expense. And we shouldn't have to pick up the butts in order to keep our properties neat. It's about time we all decide to live consciously. That means making choices that bless ourselves, everyone else, and all of God's creation, too.
WILLA LEFEVER
NORTH CODORUS TWP.
No comments:
Post a Comment