Have you recently employed an editorial writer from MSNBC or The New York Times or perhaps from New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg's staff? That's the only explanation I can come up with for your editorial on Sunday, "Thanks for not smoking."

Is this the beginning of a love affair with the nanny state by the BND?

There is so much wrong with your suggested ban of smoking by public housing residents in their own homes that I don't know where to begin.

Just a couple of the many points. You write "as long as the taxpayers are paying the bills, the government gets to make the rules." It's a concept that works well for minor children living in a household. Are public housing residents "children" subject to the whims of the government "adults"?

What's the next legal activity that will you would ban? How about caffeine? A number of studies indicate some harm from it.

Maybe you can expand and ban smoking and the use of alcohol for those on Medicare or receiving Social Security.

I would far rather see enforcement efforts going to rid public housing of illegal drugs and the gangs these drugs attract than worrying about a legal drug.

A universal ban on tobacco use would be far more justifiable than the government picking and choosing certain homes where the otherwise legal use of tobacco is criminalized.

You did not think this through. This is a bad idea and sets a precedent that will lead to nowhere good.

David Griffith

Belleville