Saturday, August 24, 2013

A kinder, more gentle form of fascism?

What can I say after reading this other than to say that I hope to never grow old in the North..unless I win the lottery and own a house where I can leave the busybodies fascists at the door.

It's really hard to believe that this is happening in America:

Andy Nowicki has been smoking for 70 years. Now that life-long habit for the World War II veteran might land him on the outside looking in, as the Newington
Housing Authority is suing to evict the soon-to-be 90-year-old and his 90-year-old wife from their senior housing apartment in Cedar Village.

That's right, what a great idea: Let's evict a 90year old World War II veteran and his wife for smoking (still legal and heavily taxed) in their home! Oh, that's right, it's not "really" their home because the government owns it. We truly do live in scary times. I'd rather live in a trailer any day than in a government run prison complex posing as housing for the poor.

Shame on anyone who condones this type of discrimination and outright cruelty. There is nothing American about evicting an elderly couple from their home. What a bigoted and un-American policy.

Elderly Newington Couple Facing Eviction For Smoking « CBS Connecticut


  1. It was bound to happen, JR.
    I wonder on what basis the rule exists? Was it introduced upon a whim or was there a reason? If there was a reason, and that reason was the danger of tobacco smoke, then the Management should ensure that all smoke is excluded since the dangerous stuff in tobacco smoke is also present in any other sort of smoke, if not more so.

    1. Well..if my memory serves me correct, I read a news article not too long ago about how the NIH (National Institute of Health) was campaigning for a ban in all public housing across the country. I'd have to look it up. ...kind of like the government lobbying the government with our tax dollars.

  2. Which has been going on in the UK for years. But the important thing is, where do bans on legal activities end? Especially when they are imposed retrospectively?
    There have been bans on keeping pets. But there is a huge difference between a big dog and a hamster or a budgy. What normally has happened in the past is that such bans have been 'nominal', meaning 'could be enforced if absolutely necessary'. The Health Zealots seem to have reversed that to 'must be imposed unless necessary not to'.

    Think about it.

    1. "But the important thing is, where do bans on legal activities end?"

      There doesn't appear to be any end in sight Junican, for there is no real legal basis for banning any legal activity in the first place. Certain activities can be "regulated" to a degree (21 and over for entering a drinking establishment in the U.S., etc...), but there is are limits to how much an activity can be regulated. The holy health zealots have gone waaaaaaay beyond that fine line.