User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 12:20:09 PM EDT
[#1]
If its tax payer paid housing, why not?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 12:20:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I'm wondering about is... Interesting how it's illegal to drug-test them but they're trying to make it legal to ban them from smoking? I guess the caveat is that ... whatever is in the administration's interests is "legal" and anything that isn't is "illegal". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The smoking ban would apply to lit cigarettes, cigars and pipes. Residents would be prohibited from smoking not only in their homes but also in hallways, on balconies and porches and anywhere else within 25 feet of the apartment building.It would apply to most public housing units, except those in buildings that are only partially government-funded. More than 700,000 public housing units where residents are not already prohibited from lighting up would be covered by the smoking ban. http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/292560-smoking-ban-for-public-housing-sparks-backlash I suppose that weed, meth, and heroin are permitted under the proposed ban on "lit tobacco products" http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2015-0101-0001 What I'm wondering about is... Interesting how it's illegal to drug-test them but they're trying to make it legal to ban them from smoking? I guess the caveat is that ... whatever is in the administration's interests is "legal" and anything that isn't is "illegal". Not really. The rulings against drug testing are based on the logic that there is not a justification to invade their privacy just to obtain free shit. I disagree, because: 1. The state has an interest in ensuring that taxpayer funds don't subsidize drug activity. 2. Welfare is voluntary and discriminatory by nature you aught to submit to certain circumstances that improve your position in life to take advantage. Tobacco ban, though? Uhhhhhh are they going to enforce the crack cocaine ban first? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 12:24:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good. I'm not allowed to smoke in my own damn commercial building, fuck if they should be allowed to smoke in one I pay for as well. "If I have to be less free, EVERYBODY should be less free too!" I would prefer to restore your freedoms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 12:27:43 PM EDT
[#4]
If that's true, this may be the first thing that moron has proposed that I don't have a problem with
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 12:28:45 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If its tax payer paid housing, why not? I'm guessing one apartment in every building will be for public rent, and the vacancy will be filled, thus fulfilling the "Partially Fed Funded" portion of the law to allow smoking everywhere. Then again, who's going to check? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 12:30:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weed is okay right! Crack will still be fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 12:31:45 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. The rulings against drug testing are based on the logic that there is not a justification to invade their privacy just to obtain free shit. I disagree, because: 1. The state has an interest in ensuring that taxpayer funds don't subsidize drug activity. 2. Welfare is voluntary and discriminatory by nature you aught to submit to certain circumstances that improve your position in life to take advantage. Tobacco ban, though? Uhhhhhh are they going to enforce the crack cocaine ban first? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The smoking ban would apply to lit cigarettes, cigars and pipes. Residents would be prohibited from smoking not only in their homes but also in hallways, on balconies and porches and anywhere else within 25 feet of the apartment building.It would apply to most public housing units, except those in buildings that are only partially government-funded. More than 700,000 public housing units where residents are not already prohibited from lighting up would be covered by the smoking ban. http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/292560-smoking-ban-for-public-housing-sparks-backlash I suppose that weed, meth, and heroin are permitted under the proposed ban on "lit tobacco products" http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2015-0101-0001 What I'm wondering about is... Interesting how it's illegal to drug-test them but they're trying to make it legal to ban them from smoking? I guess the caveat is that ... whatever is in the administration's interests is "legal" and anything that isn't is "illegal". Not really. The rulings against drug testing are based on the logic that there is not a justification to invade their privacy just to obtain free shit. I disagree, because: 1. The state has an interest in ensuring that taxpayer funds don't subsidize drug activity. 2. Welfare is voluntary and discriminatory by nature you aught to submit to certain circumstances that improve your position in life to take advantage. Tobacco ban, though? Uhhhhhh are they going to enforce the crack cocaine ban first? Wrong. 4th amendment. Drug testing is a search and seizure issue. To drug test a group of people not because they are suspected of a crime but because they receive some type of assistance is wrong. That's how Liberty works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 12:36:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong. 4th amendment. Drug testing is a search and seizure issue. To drug test a group of people not because they are suspected of a crime but because they receive some type of assistance is wrong. That's how Liberty works. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The smoking ban would apply to lit cigarettes, cigars and pipes. Residents would be prohibited from smoking not only in their homes but also in hallways, on balconies and porches and anywhere else within 25 feet of the apartment building.It would apply to most public housing units, except those in buildings that are only partially government-funded. More than 700,000 public housing units where residents are not already prohibited from lighting up would be covered by the smoking ban. http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/292560-smoking-ban-for-public-housing-sparks-backlash I suppose that weed, meth, and heroin are permitted under the proposed ban on "lit tobacco products" http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2015-0101-0001 What I'm wondering about is... Interesting how it's illegal to drug-test them but they're trying to make it legal to ban them from smoking? I guess the caveat is that ... whatever is in the administration's interests is "legal" and anything that isn't is "illegal". Not really. The rulings against drug testing are based on the logic that there is not a justification to invade their privacy just to obtain free shit. I disagree, because: 1. The state has an interest in ensuring that taxpayer funds don't subsidize drug activity. 2. Welfare is voluntary and discriminatory by nature you aught to submit to certain circumstances that improve your position in life to take advantage. Tobacco ban, though? Uhhhhhh are they going to enforce the crack cocaine ban first? Wrong. 4th amendment. Drug testing is a search and seizure issue. To drug test a group of people not because they are suspected of a crime but because they receive some type of assistance is wrong. That's how Liberty works.  So the government is suppose to test facilities for asbestos, but not drugs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 12:40:35 PM EDT
[#9]
Its been in effect at one welfare housing unit in houston 2 years now
http://m.chron.com/news/health/article/Smoking-banned-at-Houston-public-housing-5173898.php Im ok with it too. The shit permeates and damages walls and carpeting that the welfare leeches certainly cant afford to replace. So who does foot those bills? Taxpayers. If the welfare leeches are too lazy to go outside and smoke fuck em |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 12:46:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Will this apply to Section 8 rental units?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:22:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good. The taxpayers own those buildings. The tax payers own the white House, he has no problem smoking in there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:24:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Good do it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:25:05 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm OK with it. Cigarettes are for closers. You want to do what you want? When you pay for it go ahead. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:26:15 PM EDT
[#14]
I say ban housing projects along with all other forms of welfare
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:31:47 PM EDT
[#15]
He should ban murder, robbery, rape, child abuse, drug abuse, burglary, muggings, drug peddling, and vandalism, but people should be allowed to smoke in their apartments.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:36:25 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the government is suppose to test facilities for asbestos, but not drugs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The smoking ban would apply to lit cigarettes, cigars and pipes. Residents would be prohibited from smoking not only in their homes but also in hallways, on balconies and porches and anywhere else within 25 feet of the apartment building.It would apply to most public housing units, except those in buildings that are only partially government-funded. More than 700,000 public housing units where residents are not already prohibited from lighting up would be covered by the smoking ban. http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/292560-smoking-ban-for-public-housing-sparks-backlash I suppose that weed, meth, and heroin are permitted under the proposed ban on "lit tobacco products" http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2015-0101-0001 What I'm wondering about is... Interesting how it's illegal to drug-test them but they're trying to make it legal to ban them from smoking? I guess the caveat is that ... whatever is in the administration's interests is "legal" and anything that isn't is "illegal". Not really. The rulings against drug testing are based on the logic that there is not a justification to invade their privacy just to obtain free shit. I disagree, because: 1. The state has an interest in ensuring that taxpayer funds don't subsidize drug activity. 2. Welfare is voluntary and discriminatory by nature you aught to submit to certain circumstances that improve your position in life to take advantage. Tobacco ban, though? Uhhhhhh are they going to enforce the crack cocaine ban first? Wrong. 4th amendment. Drug testing is a search and seizure issue. To drug test a group of people not because they are suspected of a crime but because they receive some type of assistance is wrong. That's how Liberty works.
So the government is suppose to test facilities for asbestos, but not drugs? I guess you're cool with the cops tossing your home, vehicle, or even blood/body without a warrant or reasonable articulable suspicion. Cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:39:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If its tax payer paid housing, why not? Wait until you have taxpayer paid medical care.......no more liberty for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:44:00 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Will this apply to Section 8 rental units? I thought that was what "Project Housing" was? Forgive my ignorance, I live in a rural area. Are there places to live that aren't rent based on income level, with some minimum amount due? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:46:46 PM EDT
[#19]
That be racist, yo!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:49:48 PM EDT
[#20]
They shouldn't be allowed to keep firearms for their own protection in their apartments either.
Tyranny that I personally approve of is perfectly acceptable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:51:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
maybe he should try to get lead free water for his people in Detroit... Wrong city dumbass |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:52:44 PM EDT
[#22]
If you take gov money don't be surprised if they keep attaching strings as time goes by. Gov overreach is standard practice and won't slow down any time soon.
That said, I'm sure the compliance rate will be 100%..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 1:56:07 PM EDT
[#23]
I think I'll just have a coke and watch the meltdown
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:05:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Do as I say, not as I do homey...
http://buzzpo.com/obama-caught-lying-this-time-theres-a-photograph/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:06:19 PM EDT
[#25]
lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:07:56 PM EDT
[#26]
I hate smoking and housing projects. Regardless, they would be well within their rights to tell him to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:12:04 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope it passes so the black community can (maybe?) finally see that he's not one of them, nor does he give a shit about their liberty. You went full logic. Never go full logic. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:13:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate smoking and housing projects. Regardless, they would be well within their rights to tell him to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. You just said it best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:13:23 PM EDT
[#29]
The State giveth, and the State taketh away.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:18:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The police and the black community have a good relationship currently so I assume the police will. +1 Yup, this will go over very well! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:21:24 PM EDT
[#31]
Not their house, not their rules. I'm fine with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:23:19 PM EDT
[#32]
You mean free stuff has strings attached? Who would have guessed?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:26:57 PM EDT
[#33]
If people have money to buy smokes let them pay for their own apartment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:32:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If people have money to buy smokes let them pay for their own apartment. Yup. Besides the local housing projects here have parking lots filled with cars I can't afford. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:37:14 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. Besides the local housing projects here have parking lots filled with cars I can't afford. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If people have money to buy smokes let them pay for their own apartment. Yup. Besides the local housing projects here have parking lots filled with cars I can't afford. You actually did afford them, you were forced to buy them for those that get free money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:38:30 PM EDT
[#36]
Let's start with not urinating in the hallways first
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:39:50 PM EDT
[#37]
I hope he success .
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:40:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's start with not urinating in the hallways first They only piss in the hallways when they can't get into an elevator soon enough to piss in there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:56:54 PM EDT
[#39]
unenforceable
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 2:57:58 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
does this mean he won't be allowed to smoke in the WH? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 3:02:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another weird thing about this. The public housing residents will call this a repressive measure and blame it all on whitey. Obama IS "whitey", so yeah. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 3:10:24 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess you're cool with the cops tossing your home, vehicle, or even blood/body without a warrant or reasonable articulable suspicion. Cool. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So the government is suppose to test facilities for asbestos, but not drugs? I guess you're cool with the cops tossing your home, vehicle, or even blood/body without a warrant or reasonable articulable suspicion. Cool. I guess you're cool with taxpayers supplying a residence, utilities, Obamaphones, and drug money to deadbeats. Cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 3:12:39 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They shouldn't be allowed to keep firearms for their own protection in their apartments either. Tyranny that I personally approve of is perfectly acceptable. It's not they're house. It's a .gov house. I dictate to my tenants that they cannot smoke or own pets in MY house. Want to guess why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 3:32:50 PM EDT
[#44]
He should add doing drugs to the smoking ban
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 3:38:37 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not they're house. It's a .gov house. I dictate to my tenants that they cannot smoke or own pets in MY house. Want to guess why? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They shouldn't be allowed to keep firearms for their own protection in their apartments either. Tyranny that I personally approve of is perfectly acceptable. It's not they're house. It's a .gov house. I dictate to my tenants that they cannot smoke or own pets in MY house. Want to guess why? Are you a Senator? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 3:47:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: unenforceable Will they keep their security deposit  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 3:47:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not they're house. It's a .gov house. I dictate to my tenants that they cannot smoke or own pets in MY house. Want to guess why? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They shouldn't be allowed to keep firearms for their own protection in their apartments either. Tyranny that I personally approve of is perfectly acceptable. It's not they're house. It's a .gov house. I dictate to my tenants that they cannot smoke or own pets in MY house. Want to guess why? The federal government doesn't "own" the housing projects, it subsidizes their operation, but is not the actual landlord. For example, The New York City Housing Authority, the largest in the country, housing an estimated 500,000 residents, is owned and operated by a non - mayoral authority which is a NY State Public Benefit Corporation and every single one of their housing projects is legally considered private, rather than public property. The tenants are tenants by lease and their leases do not prohibit smoking tobacco. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 3:48:23 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 3:54:02 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you a Senator? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They shouldn't be allowed to keep firearms for their own protection in their apartments either. Tyranny that I personally approve of is perfectly acceptable. It's not they're house. It's a .gov house. I dictate to my tenants that they cannot smoke or own pets in MY house. Want to guess why? Are you a Senator? I guess the point being made was beyond your understanding. Taxpayers feel bad for poor people. Taxpayers subject themselves to taxation. Tax dollars used for poor people housing. Taxpayers establish rules governing use of housing. Poor person wants free apartment. Poor person must submit to the rules governing free housing. Poor person doesn't like rules? Person can leave. Of course we could avoid all of this and just not have housing projects , but you know..... feelerz and all that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2016 3:59:39 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess the point being made was beyond your understanding. Taxpayers feel bad for poor people. Taxpayers subject themselves to taxation. Tax dollars used for poor people housing. Taxpayers establish rules governing use of housing. Poor person wants free apartment. Poor person must submit to the rules governing free housing. Poor person doesn't like rules? Person can leave. Of course we could avoid all of this and just not have housing projects , but you know..... feelerz and all that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They shouldn't be allowed to keep firearms for their own protection in their apartments either. Tyranny that I personally approve of is perfectly acceptable. It's not they're house. It's a .gov house. I dictate to my tenants that they cannot smoke or own pets in MY house. Want to guess why? Are you a Senator? I guess the point being made was beyond your understanding. Taxpayers feel bad for poor people. Taxpayers subject themselves to taxation. Tax dollars used for poor people housing. Taxpayers establish rules governing use of housing. Poor person wants free apartment. Poor person must submit to the rules governing free housing. Poor person doesn't like rules? Person can leave. Of course we could avoid all of this and just not have housing projects , but you know..... feelerz and all that. Wow you're really smart. 
You should have no difficulty learning about who actually makes the rules included in the leases of the residents of public housing. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
