Good luck with that

No smoking allowed in America’s public housing. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will begin implementing a smoking ban early next year, reports the New York Times, which will prohibit people from lighting up in apartments, common space, and within 25 feet of any public-housing building. Cigarettes, cigars, and pipes are included in the ban; e-cigs are exempt.


Why make a law that you either can’t or won’t enforce?

This entry was posted in WTF?. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Good luck with that

  1. Knolli says:

    Simple, so you can get them by the balls for violating this, when you have nothing against them for anything truly criminal…..

    • Wirecutter says:

      Like openly dealing and using drugs in and around their public housing or belonging to a street gang? They already do that and nobody does anything about it.
      Besides, how are they going to know if somebody’s smoking inside their home? The stench of marijuana, urine and vomit will cover the smell of that.

      • Knolli says:

        No, No… I haven’t used the right word… not more criminal…more illegal?
        The housing authority is like a big landlord right? Normally he can’t quit a existing rent-contract willy-nilly, as a reason he needs something like not paying rent, or destroying parts of the building or flat. With this ban the authority has one more arrow in its quiver….

        “Madam.. (or “Hey Hoe”)It’s smells like cigarette smoke in here”

        “No nobody smokes in here… ”

        “I smell smoke anyway….”

        How do you defend against a accusation like that anyway?

      • bikermailman says:

        How are they going to know? Neighbors. Totalitarian states always rely on snitches, as the enforcers can’t be everywhere. Keep the proles in fear of their neighbor, coworker, or even family turning them in for some slight offense. Often times, the snitch’s reason is simple jealousy that one animal is more equal than another.

  2. ChuckN says:

    Interesting, you have to be either an addict or
    a dealer to qualify for most public housing.

  3. truthzzzz says:

    – Why make a law that you either can’t or won’t enforce? –

    To contribute to disrespect of the law. A progressive goal. destroy before rebuilding in their vision is a communist and progressive goal. that is why they never let anything good last.
    Also for arbitrary prosecution as Knolli was driving towards.

  4. Jack58 says:

    They should enforce the no-fucking law for all the good that would do either..(Hate-speech alert)
    I’m so damned tired of subsidizing all the wastrel, inbred, layabout, Dindo motherfuckers that inhabit these shitholes with their higher class roommates- cockroaches and rats- I’d be fine if they forbade any food allowed consumed too..

  5. crazyeighter says:

    Taking effect just in time for Trump to take the heat for it.

  6. SunwolfNC says:

    It’ll be nixxed by the new HUD dude, Ben Carson, when he accepts the position.

  7. pigpen51 says:

    I doubt it. Carson, if he accepts, is after all, a medical doctor, so he has more than a passing knowledge of the effects of tobacco. Not that I think that it is anyone’s business if someone smokes tobacco, pot, rat turds, or any other thing. But who knows, Carson might wipe the slate clean, and start over. He could do worse.

  8. dddddancetotheradio says:

    Selective enforcement.

  9. C.R. says:

    ok, so no tobacco in the projects,but prostitution,heroin,crack,meth,and murder are acceptible ?

  10. Gnome Sane says:

    Aren’t all FedGov properties supposed to be gun-free zones?

If your comment 'disappears', don't trip - it went to my trash folder and I will restore it when I moderate.