default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Housing Authority exploring new policy on smoking on and near residences - The Frederick News-Post : Social Policies

Smoking Housing Authority exploring new policy on smoking on and near residences

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:00 am

Reginald Cooley knows smoking is not good for his health. He would like to quit.

The 60-year-old just wants to do so on his own terms.

Login required

We have used your information to see if you have a subscription with us, but did not find one.

Please click the button below to verify an existing account or to purchase a new subscription.

Need an account? Create one now.

You must login to view the full content on this page.

We have used your information to see if you have a subscription with us, but did not find one.

Please click the button below to verify an existing account or to purchase a new subscription.

Need an account? Create one now.

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

44 comments:

  • ct99246 posted at 11:27 am on Sat, May 31, 2014.

    ct99246 Posts: 9

    How do you know if they're "able bodied"? You don't! You just sit there and blow smoke out your backside.

     
  • ct99246 posted at 11:22 am on Sat, May 31, 2014.

    ct99246 Posts: 9

    That's not what the Constitution says. You must hate the Constitution.

     
  • ct99246 posted at 11:20 am on Sat, May 31, 2014.

    ct99246 Posts: 9

    There is no such "research" on so-called thirdhand smoke. There's nothing but an opinion poll that they inflicted on a bunch of ignorant, credulous, media-brainwashed sheep. Your claims about secondhand smoke are based on fraud and corruption. Your beloved "EPA" report wasn't even written by real EPA scientists, who were against calling it a human carcinogen. It was really written by the most militant anti-smokers, using illegal pass-through contracts to conceal their role. It was released at the end of the President George H.W. Bush administration, and on the board of directors of the crooked contracting firm sat Fred Malek, who was GHW Bush's campaign manager.

    http://www.smokershistory.com/etslies.htm

    Those lies that secondhand smoke causes heart disease are based on fraud, too.

    http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

     
  • ct99246 posted at 11:13 am on Sat, May 31, 2014.

    ct99246 Posts: 9

    Our right to liberty is a supposed to be a Constitutionally-protected right, and so is our right to the equal protection of the laws. You have no right to take away our liberty without justification. Your anti-smoking charlatans know they have no justification, so they commit scientific fraud to falsely cococt supposed smoking dangers. And commiting scientific fraud with taxpayer money is a violation of everybody's rights.

     
  • ct99246 posted at 11:07 am on Sat, May 31, 2014.

    ct99246 Posts: 9

    "CDC analyzed asthma data from the 2001–2009 National Health Interview Survey concerning children and adults, and from the 2001, 2005, and 2009 state-based Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System concerning adults. Among persons of all ages, the prevalence of asthma increased from 7.3% (20.3 million persons) in 2001 to 8.2% (24.6 million persons) in 2009, a 12.3% increase... The prevalence and number of persons with asthma have increased since 2001, and demographic differences among population subgroups persist despite improvements in outdoor air quality and decreases in cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke exposure." (Vital Signs: Asthma Prevalence, Disease Characteristics, and Self-Management Education --- United States, 2001--2009. HS Zahran, C Bailey, P Garbe. MMWR 2011; 60: 1-7.)

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm60e0503a1.htm

     
  • ct99246 posted at 11:04 am on Sat, May 31, 2014.

    ct99246 Posts: 9

    They're not "nannies," they're criminals who violate our rights by using scientific fraud and spreading false fear. Anyone who calls them nannies is whitewashing their crimes.

     
  • ct99246 posted at 11:01 am on Sat, May 31, 2014.

    ct99246 Posts: 9

    Anti-smokers falsely blame smoking for COPD. The CD4(+)CD28(null) T-cells these clowns blame on secondhand smoke happen to be absolutely specific for cytomegalovirus infection. They're known to arise during primary infection, and are found only among the CMV-positive.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2669523/

    More studies.

    http://www.smokershistory.com/COPD.html

     
  • ct99246 posted at 10:57 am on Sat, May 31, 2014.

    ct99246 Posts: 9

    Half-truths are whole lies. The real story is that the anti-smokers commit flagrant scientific fraud by ignoring more than 50 studies which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least 1/4 of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And they commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

    http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
    http://www.smokershistory.com/SGHDlies.html

    And, all their so-called "independent" reports were ring-led by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he's now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique exclude all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That's how they make their reports "unanimous!"

    http://www.smokershistory.com/Samet.htm

    For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

     
  • Kin Free posted at 6:12 pm on Wed, May 28, 2014.

    Kin Free Posts: 3

    Targeting the vulnerable, infirm, aged and poorest in society is one of the most disgusting aspects of the anti-smoker industry, much worse than their other main tactic - exploiting children and emotive responses to children. Both are used here. This is an anti-smoker ‘policy’ intended to create fear, not just in the victims themselves but to stand as a clear example to others - to coerce compliance.

    We all know (or should know) that passive smoking ‘harm’ is a pure manufactured deception, used to justify this coercion. Research has even shown passive smoking is beneficial to children’s health (probably related to the ‘hygiene hypothesis’), but many people are now realising that even active smoking propaganda is highly questionable and that smoking has many beneficial effects. There is even some evidence that smokers, particularly long term smokers such as these elderly residents, will be put at risk by being coerced into quitting.

    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2007/oct/16/highereducation.research1

    The anti-smoker propaganda campaign to normalize intolerance, such as this, is well developed and well funded. It effectively works on the assumption that people are stupid and repeating the propaganda over and again, even when challenged, is all that is needed for them to ‘believe’. I think they are wrong! - Only SOME of the people are fooled ALL of the time !!

     
  • IrishBrigade posted at 7:21 am on Wed, May 28, 2014.

    IrishBrigade Posts: 135

    War against the poor ? My issue are the lazy able bodied people on housing and EBT . No man under age 80 should qualify. Unless He We're 100% disabled, if not Then They Should Be Forced To Volunteer To Pick Up Liter . It annoys me I pay my fair share in life, nothing is free.if you cannot find employment volunteer and definitely require a drug test.

     
  • The Archivist posted at 7:05 am on Wed, May 28, 2014.

    The Archivist Posts: 1

    Quote:- "Carla LeSane, Lucas Village council president, said she is a nonsmoker whose mother has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a result of smoking."
    How, if shye was a NON smoker did smoking (above the other million possibilities) cause her mothers COPD? I have never heard such tripe in all my life [sad] The anti smoking brigade are so superficial it is truly unreal and now that it has been proven that SHS is HARMLESS they don't really have a leg to stand on.
    This is all about dictatorship;ie, those in majority waving the big stick over those in a minority.
    And, apparently, this action is not to stigmatize smokers blah blah. What a load of BS! As a NON smoker myself I would place a bench exactly 4 meters (or whatever the determined range maybe) from a building and light a binfire to get rid of all my burnable rubbish-see what they gotta say about that! Come to think of it, I would plonk your very own 'dreamer scientist' mStanton Glantz smack bang in the middle of it!
    Shame on you Housing Authority of the City of Frederick., you should mbe thoroughly ashamed of yourselves!

     
  • Lisa Belle posted at 12:24 am on Wed, May 28, 2014.

    Lisa Belle Posts: 1

    "Ryan Trout, the Housing Authority’s special projects manager, said the purpose behind the policy was not to stigmatize smokers. It is about reducing secondhand smoke inhalation, particularly by children and seniors, and promoting fire safety."

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Keeping smokers down, keeps smokers smoking full of shame, blame and taxed to death. There is nothing in the argument that adds 'children', there is not physical scientific proof to back that inuendo up.

    This is a war on the poor. Granted, that many who so easily blame those in need, with fewer avenues to live independently from "nanny" , however he the person the article is about is 100% right. There is nothing but control and taxation behind this imposition on someone's freedom and liberty. Smokers may do something distasteful to some, but by and large they contribute more to the economy than almost any other consumer group, and die young, not needing housing in their senior years for the most part. Billions of dollars pour into each of the 50 States as long as cigarettes are sold... try and follow the money your sure to find the real rats!

     
  • IrishBrigade posted at 10:10 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    IrishBrigade Posts: 135

    This country needs a 3rd political party a working class party. To stand against all this extreme right wing corporate minds and the extreme left entitlement vote buyers. What has happened to this nation, it's as if we are all bickering over nothing while our country tanks .

     
  • pixie-dust posted at 9:46 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    pixie-dust Posts: 1026

    I'm not certain that shiftless's question isn't a fair comparison. Could a private landlord include a "no guns" clause in a lease? IANAL but doesn't seem beyond the pale. Gun ownership is not an unrestricted right, after all. And the property owner has certain rights as well. A lot of govt subsidized housing is privately owned. So I suppose another question is whether the govt could require a property owner who accepts section 8 to include a no-guns clause in a lease.

     
  • shiftless88 posted at 9:32 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    shiftless88 Posts: 883

    Two points. Gun rights are not unlimited and there are a number of places/situations in which they are forbidden by the government (go ahead, try to bring your pistol into the Capitol building). Second, even at that it negates all the whiners below going on about how can this person afford to smoke when they're getting subsidized rent. Well, how can they afford to buy a gun?

     
  • newtofc posted at 8:51 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    newtofc Posts: 1335

    Who said anything about race? Why did you bring that up?

     
  • newtofc posted at 8:45 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    newtofc Posts: 1335

    Communism? Communism? Communism is so 50's. Who wants to be a Communist these days? Rediculous.

     
  • runningaddict414 posted at 8:45 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    runningaddict414 Posts: 652

    Can't help you out there, bud. Gotta figure that one out for yourself.

     
  • pixie-dust posted at 8:34 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    pixie-dust Posts: 1026

    But how would that help me feel superior to everyone else?

     
  • unspoken girl posted at 8:14 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    unspoken girl Posts: 8

    I used to live in public housing on sagner Ave I didn't live there b/c I was poor I lived there due to family problems I was living with and needed somewhere to live i work everyday and have 3 kids that i pay day-care for pay all my bills with my own money i saw how all the people live up there and had to get out b/c nobody works they sell drugs right in front of where you live fights all the time young kids running the streets all hours of the night parents have no control over their kids i agree with the no smoking policy b/c I'm a non smoker but I think the housing authority needs to do more like making these lazy bumbs get off their butts and get a job people like these people piss hardworking people like me off by using the system and not getting off their lazy asses to get a job glad I was able to get out of that lazy drug infested area

     
  • runningaddict414 posted at 7:57 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    runningaddict414 Posts: 652

    Or you could criticize someone who criticizes those who criticize.

     
  • pixie-dust posted at 7:18 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    pixie-dust Posts: 1026

    Hard to figure out what is most enticing. The chance to criticize nanny government, the chance to criticize oblivious smokers, the chance to criticize holier than thou non-smokers, or the chance to criticize poor people for being poor.

     
  • runningaddict414 posted at 6:04 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    runningaddict414 Posts: 652

    Mr. Cooley is concerned that his right to infect others with his second- and third-hand smoke is being infringed upon? Interesting.

     
  • darththevader posted at 5:49 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    darththevader Posts: 1866

    Let's crack down on cigarettes instead of crime, fraud, and drugs. Makes sense

     
  • backroomfrederick posted at 5:09 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    backroomfrederick Posts: 1287

    "Ryan Trout, the Housing Authority’s special projects manager, said the purpose behind the policy was not to stigmatize smokers. It is about reducing secondhand smoke inhalation, particularly by children and seniors....."

    Ryan, hear about the incinerator disaster Frederick's "leaders" got taxpayers into? You want second hand smoke? How about 2 million crackling tires? Join the fight against the incinerator.

     
  • averagejoe33 posted at 3:20 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    averagejoe33 Posts: 423

    [thumbup]

     
  • Solarrays247 posted at 1:48 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    Solarrays247 Posts: 96

    Mr. Cooley, you claim that a proposed new policy regarding smoking would infringe upon your liberties?

    Well, what about my rights, and those of others, to our liberty to breathe clean air?

    I suffer from asthma, and do my best to avoid cigarette smoke. I must always make sure that I am carrying my emergency inhaler just in case I inadvertently end up sharing a breathing space with a smoker. It's even a problem for us when retail stores, such as grocery stores, locate those cigarette disposal contraptions right in front of their entrance ways. We have to make a mad dash past those stinky things and make sure we always have our inhalers handy. And if I should forget to carry my inhaler even while simply taking a walk, and come upon your cigarette smoke, I'm flirting with the disaster of losing my ability to be able to draw life-sustaining air into my lungs.

    So, what about non-smokers rights, Sir? What about our liberties?

     
  • a18e9c5 posted at 1:22 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    a18e9c5 Posts: 119

    Forget whether smoking is good for you or your neighbor. Forget the government interference into their personal lives. Forget that. What about the fact that I am a working tax payer, from who the government is taking money to pay the rent for these people and they have their own money to buy cigarettes, alcohol and what ever other legal and illegal habits they have. Why is it that some of the workforce has to pee in a cup to keep their job but these people can take my hard earned dollars to pay their rent then spend their money how they want. The taxpayers are getting disgusted. This is not a White, Black, or Hispanic issue. It is a right and wrong issue.

     
  • soule1061 posted at 1:20 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    soule1061 Posts: 916

    I worked in a building where smoking was allowed. That place stank from one end to the other. When you came out at the end of the day, you smelled of cigarette smoke. When my company moved out of the place, the interior had to be gutted and completely refurbished. Even then, they couldn't get rid of the smell. Smoking causes damage to property and degrades its value.

     
  • shiftless88 posted at 12:21 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    shiftless88 Posts: 883

    Just curious if anyone's opinion would be changed if, instead of restricting smoking, they restricted gun ownership in gov't subsidized housing. I'd also be interested if anyone considers that if they deduct mortgage interest on their taxes they are also effectively being subsidized for their housing (the government makes it cheaper than it would be otherwise). Thoughts?

     
  • easilyamused posted at 11:26 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    easilyamused Posts: 50

    [thumbup]

     
  • easilyamused posted at 11:25 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    easilyamused Posts: 50

    [thumbup]

     
  • Dwasserba posted at 10:47 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    Dwasserba Posts: 2100

    Research has revealed the concept of "thirdhand" smoke now too, which means, it isn't healthy for others to be exposed to *residual* smoke on the clothing of smokers and such, even if they don't smoke in your presence. We've all smelled it on smokers. At-risk people are probably exposed to this even when loved ones smoke elsewhere.

    I quit in 1985 after 15 years, it was horrible, my body fought back, giving me exzema for the first time ever, not to mention the effect on my personality...I had to change long ingrained habits, like smoking talking on the phone back when phones attached you to a wall, I started standing up and having shorter conversations, smoking in the bath to relax at night became showering, stopped entertaining on my front porch, stopped visiting certain places that offered music, omg. If you haven't made yourself do this, it is like remaking your life, the associations with smoking. Breakfast: coffee and a cigarette. Lunch: cigarettes and...who cares what. The only place I didn't smoke was in the car, but suddenly I wasn't driving to my favorite places, soooo....and then I had to start exercising too, because I was eating so much black licorice.
    I thought I'd be saving a lot of money but..?? I never felt that. I could eat out more but I missed the cigarette and others smoked around me back then and I couldn't take it.
    Put in a program to help people quit and show some support and empathy for their predicament. They aren't *choosing* to cut back or change habits as I was. Meet them halfway.
    Smoke does go thru walls. Ever stay on a non smoking floor above a smoking floor at a hotel? Having once been a pencil-thin smoker this chubette is hypersensitive to smoke now. And I have respiratory issues from it. QUIT. It costs you in so many ways. If we wore our lungs on the outside some of us would still smoke. The fewer who smoke around me the more likely I won't ever again. If you can't stop for yourself, stop for others!!


     
  • mtwocents77 posted at 8:58 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    mtwocents77 Posts: 46

    Its very bothersome that anyone (but the 1%'ers) has money for cigarettes. Tax them relative to their real cost to society and the rest will not be able to afford. Invest in education and treatment. Even financial incentives for smokers to quit...we'd all be ahead in the end.

     
  • amault posted at 8:47 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    amault Posts: 92

    [thumbup]

     
  • newspostreader posted at 8:43 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    newspostreader Posts: 117

    I can't feel sorry for them. It is very bothersome that they have money to buy cigarettes, but yet live in housing paid at least partially by our tax dollars.

     
  • CRACKER_LEE posted at 8:10 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    CRACKER_LEE Posts: 121

    [thumbup]

     
  • Crustybachelor posted at 8:06 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    Crustybachelor Posts: 473

    It stinks. People who don't smoke don't want to have to smell or breath it. Smokers need to go off and find a place where they can't harm or bother others to light up. It is a good policy.

     
  • tstright posted at 7:54 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    tstright Posts: 6

    Live off the .gov teat, follow their rules.

     
  • IrishBrigade posted at 7:35 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    IrishBrigade Posts: 135

    Well I don't believe in goverment help for anyone that doesn't pay in. Unless your a disabled veteran or disabled civilian that paid into ss. Red Cross if for handouts not my tax dollars. People want to smoke work hard buy your own home.

     
  • CRACKER_LEE posted at 7:10 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    CRACKER_LEE Posts: 121

    They get what they vote for. Wait till they shut down places like Golden Corral, because all you can eat cant be healthy

     
  • pretzel posted at 6:57 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    pretzel Posts: 367

    Well it's only another step toward communism our horrid administration is trying to accomplish. I don't care whether it's public housing or a single family home on culler lake, it will all take us to the same place, loss of freedoms.

     
  • bflodave posted at 6:32 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    bflodave Posts: 49

    Government intrusion, period.

     
  • IrishBrigade posted at 6:13 am on Tue, May 27, 2014.

    IrishBrigade Posts: 135

    People's liberties ???? If your living in public housing I want to know how you can afford to smoke. As a taxpayer I am pissed if you can afford cigarettes then pay your own rent. You want liberties then work hard make lots of money and buy your own home.

     

Be your own boss!

Looking for extra cash?

We need reliable newspaper carriers. Apply today.

Featured Events