NEW smoking rules

[Topaz]

A trucker was fined 305.00 for smoking inside his truck because under the new smoking law, its deemed your workplace and illegal. If you are a farmer with a closed in cab, you can't smoke, if your business is at home, can you smoke there, maybe not. Anywhere your workplace is, it not illegal. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/200...ine-091008.html

[Mr.Canada]

Nanny state, Daddy Dalton or whatever you want to call it gone wild.

[eyeball]

Nanny state, Daddy Dalton or whatever you want to call it gone wild.

What happened to the law is the law is the law, would you rather the state ignore it now that its the law?

[Topaz]

I think that in ten years time, it will be illegal to smoke in Canada and so if I were a smoker I try real hard to quit before there isn't any smokes left to smoke. Our health care will benefit from this and people may even live longer.

[BubberMiley]

I think that in ten years time, it will be illegal to smoke in Canada and so if I were a smoker I try real hard to quit before there isn't any smokes left to smoke.

Yes, because it's well known that as soon as they make it illegal, it's impossible to find anymore. You'll have to go to where the kids hang out to buy them.

[Slim MacSquinty]

I think that obtuse prudes who tell others what to do are a danger to society, perhaps when Michael Bryant has resolved his legal issues we could have him come back and help Dalton ban them like he did with Bull Terriers, hell if we can delete a species of animal how hard could it be eliminate stupid morons?

[noahbody]

A trucker was fined 305.00 for smoking inside his truck because under the new smoking law, its deemed your workplace and illegal. If you are a farmer with a closed in cab, you can't smoke, if your business is at home, can you smoke there, maybe not. Anywhere your workplace is, it not illegal.

Tomorrow, every trucker should pull over at 10:30 for a 15 minute smoke break. The law would be changed by noon.

[OddSox]

I think that in ten years time, it will be illegal to smoke in Canada and so if I were a smoker I try real hard to quit before there isn't any smokes left to smoke. Our health care will benefit from this and people may even live longer.

Something like 25%-30% of the cigarettes sold in Ontario are already illegal and untaxed. I wonder if the Ontario government is planning to sue those manufacturers as well?

As far as the trucker's 'workplace fine', I have to wonder if this isn't someone trying to set up a court challenge to the law? I find it hard to believe a police officer would concern himself/herself with something like this without encouragement from someone...

[Wild Bill]

Something like 25%-30% of the cigarettes sold in Ontario are already illegal and untaxed. I wonder if the Ontario government is planning to sue those manufacturers as well?

As far as the trucker's 'workplace fine', I have to wonder if this isn't someone trying to set up a court challenge to the law? I find it hard to believe a police officer would concern himself/herself with something like this without encouragement from someone...

Actually, the official number is more like 50%! Since this sort of thing is very hard to track we can expect the figure may actually be higher.

To charge a trucker is obviously the same as FORCING him to quit! Truckers often drive for long hours. What's more, there is no rationalization that it is protecting non-smokers from passive smoke if the trucker is alone in his cab.

It is simple fascism, by definition! Anyone who expects that a trucker would meekly submit because some anti-tobacco advocate tells him to do it "for his own good" is dreaming in technicolour!

I would not be surprised if it's NOT a setup! Much of the anti-smoking movement is really a thinly veiled attempt to FORCE your neighbours to do what YOU think is good for them! There is nothing so popular to many people than being able to boss others around. Cops are not immune to this syndrome. In fact, some of this sort of personality might be attracted to the job!

Once again, for the record, I am NOT a smoker! I just don't believe in FORCING my neighbours to live by MY values!

[Molly]

From the link:

Neil MacKenzie, the manager of tobacco programs for the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit, said his group has laid 10 charges for vehicle-related offences since the law went into effect, to taxi drivers and construction workers, among others.

It is getting to be about time for a court challenge to this, and honestly, a few more, nanny laws. The purse-mouthed overlords, on their white hobby-horses are becoming more and more difficult to accommodate, more and more overstretched in their demands...

(I'm reminded of the suggestion that helmets be required in order to legally slide down a snowy hill.)

There does come a point at which knee-jerk, intrusive 'care' does more harm than good. Kids rarely now use bicycles for basic transportation. I do know one boy who biked daily to school, but stopped when he got a ticket for not having a helmet on. So... is the net effect of helmet law prevention of head injuries, or prevention of bicycle use?

Smoking harrassment laws are of a different kind from that, but the push,push,push must at some point be questioned. At what point does it become no ones d***ed business?

[Shady]

It's a pretty sad day in our country, when a private citizen can't smoke in the truck that he owns. If it's considered a workplace, does he also have to provide wheelchair access to his vehicle? Just wondering.

[eyeball]

As someone who is appalled at the complete lack of any comprehensive and above all consistent substance use legislation I applaud the efforts of the state to start treating people who do tobacco like any other people that do drugs in this country. Perhaps when enough Canadians come to have a better understanding of prohibition they'll be motivated to pressure the state do something about it.

As for there being a threat to non-smokers on the highway, smoking behind the wheel could pose the same danger that using a cell-phone or eating or anything else that takes your attention off the wheel and road. I used to smoke and remember fumbling around looking for a cigarette in the dark and I'm sure just about anyone who smokes behind the wheel has done the funky chicken when the ember accidently gets knocked off into their lap. What if Buddy loses it coming around the corner and smacks into a school bus full of kids? Of course a lit cigarette would also make a dandy ignition source in the event of a collision that resulted in fuel being spilled.

Thankfully people who do tobacco do have other options. Tobacco doesn't have to be smoked to deliver drugs to your brain it can be eaten, its just like pot, in that regard at least.

[Molly]

That just demands comment 'to the absurd', Eyeball.

If we are to be protected from all substances that harm us, then I must assume we will soon be prosecuted for possession and use of white sugar, trans fats, etc, etc. along with almost any sort of solvent or cleaning product, those nifty murcury-containing lightbulbs, and almost all over-the-counter drugs..... (the list is endless, but the drift is beyond obvious)

Threats to other drivers by distracted smokers also suggest that neither pets nor children, nor really, any other passengers should be allowed in moving vehicles; no radio or sound equipment, nor, really, any other gadgets. Maps should only be allowed in back seats.... Definitely... what's up with drink holders? No one who is driving should be reaching for a drink, either hot or cold, that might spill in a lap to cause the 'funky chicken'... again, beyond obvious.

"Butt out" needs a pendulum swing.

[eyeball]

That just demands comment 'to the absurd', Eyeball.

If we are to be protected from all substances that harm us, then I must assume we will soon be prosecuted for possession and use of white sugar, trans fats, etc, etc. along with almost any sort of solvent or cleaning product, those nifty murcury-containing lightbulbs, and almost all over-the-counter drugs..... (the list is endless, but the drift is beyond obvious)

Threats to other drivers by distracted smokers also suggest that neither pets nor children, nor really, any other passengers should be allowed in moving vehicles; no radio or sound equipment, nor, really, any other gadgets. Maps should only be allowed in back seats.... Definitely... what's up with drink holders? No one who is driving should be reaching for a drink, either hot or cold, that might spill in a lap to cause the 'funky chicken'... again, beyond obvious.

"Butt out" needs a pendulum swing.

Of course its absurd but like I said, perhaps when enough Canadians come to have a better understanding of what prohibition actually means to people they'll be motivated to pressure the state to 'butt out'.

I didn't mean sugar or fat when I said substances by the way. As for drinks, food, or other distractants in vehicles these are harder to justify regulating because they just don't have the moral underpinnings that usually get people and goverments excited. I suspect the technology of driving will have to move towards hands free driving given all the gadets that people use. I expect insurance actuaries will finally force the issue as claims increase due to more accidents.

As for dugs though, lets face it, the fact that tobacco use is wrapped up in the same sort of moral panic that other drugs are makes it an easy target for regulators to regulate. Why do you think the taxes on tobacco are refered to as sin taxes? I have no doubt that if the government wins this fight it will feel empowered to start going after other things that might hurt people. I'm no big fan of the government sticking its nose in everything people do either.

So if there is going to be a court challenge to anti-smoking laws I wonder what section of the Charter will be used to defend or establish people's rights to use an addictive deadly substance and how applicable the subsequent ruling will be towards other substances that adults choose to do? Like I said I applaud anything that might force this issue into the light and if it means pissing off a bunch of drug addicted smokers to do so, I say suck it up and walk a mile in someone else's shoes for awhile. I bet you any money there will be anti-prohibition intervenors trying to get in on this court challenge. It should be interesting.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Life by its very nature is a balance of risks, those who wish to eliminate all risk from their own lives have my full support for their perpetual TV watching, healthy eating and generally boring lifestyles. Despite the fact they will be burdening the governement by collecting pensions and using healthcare and other facilities long past their due dates while they continue to occupy space playing bingo and doing macrame.

However, I draw the line on my tolerance for them when they expect the rest of society to join them in their quest for safe and boring longevity.

Give me liberty or give you death should be on your license plates.

I say to all these facist do gooders; "butt out of my life", pun intended.

[PocketRocket]

This is a case of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

The workplace smoking law was passed to protect non-smokers in the workplace from the hazards/inconvenience of 2nd hand smoke.

Alone in a truck, with no one else to inhale such smoke, the law becomes irrelevant.

The article did not mention whether the charge was contested. Anyone know anything about that???

I would like to think that a sensible judge would throw this one out......

[BubberMiley]

It's a pretty sad day in our country, when a private citizen can't smoke in the truck that he owns.

Meh. I've never been "allowed" to smoke even in my own home, just because some are interested in maintaining the black market in what I like to smoke.

[Topaz]

This past Monday, they were talking about this on CKLW and the host said that FEDERAL truckers are not included in the ban as far as the trucking industry is concerned. I can see a complete ban on smoking in Canada because of the high costs of healthcare. If any one is a smoker,go to the DRs, get some Zyban and in least than 6 months you won't be smoking and richer!

[eyeball]

This is a case of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

The workplace smoking law was passed to protect non-smokers in the workplace from the hazards/inconvenience of 2nd hand smoke.

Alone in a truck, with no one else to inhale such smoke, the law becomes irrelevant.

The article did not mention whether the charge was contested. Anyone know anything about that???

I would like to think that a sensible judge would throw this one out......

It really shouldn't come as a surprise that any government in a spirited pursuit of its mandate to protect us, whether its from ourselves or not, would use every avenue it can to do so.

The only way around this issue of totalitarian creep is really specific legislation that draws a line that the state cannot cross. I submit however there are enough people in ALL ideologies that will never let this occur.

Its MAD - mutual assured dictatorship.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Eyeball I actually agree with your MAD assessment, in my view it comes from having an overly formally educated, highly urban population.

The arguement is always the same and it goes somethng like this:

I, being a highly intelligent and civilized person having utilized my significant cognitive skills, have conluded this activity/ product is dangerous/ undersirable/ annoying and is something that I have no interest in owning/ doing therefore every other similarly intelligent and civilized person should have reached this conclusion as well. Those who have not reached this same conclusion are clearly not as intelligent and civilized as me, or perhaps are a criminal or have criminal tendancies and therefore deserve to have the benefit, if not imposition, of my opinion.

Of course this argument is easy for smoking, but if you think about it is exactly the same for gun control, a great variety of traffic/ highway laws, zoning and land use arguments and a large variety of other "safety" initiatives.

Over the past few generations we have been so eager to send our children off to University to be "educated" we have taken great pains to protect them from the trudgery of manual labour and the education it affords. Most people now drive a car but have no idea of the systems that make it work or how to fix it, indeed most people would struggle to change their own oil. They live in homes they could not construct or make significant repairs to, have in large part lost the skills to grow their own food, or even the knowledge of where it comes from and many other essential things our forefathers needed to know to survive. This then becomes a scary world which they do not understand and struggle to control, this is the perfect environment for your MAD theory to take hold.

This is to say nothing of the idea of civil liberties which require each individual to have equal regard for the liberties of others as of their own which is essential for the concept to survive.

[PocketRocket]

Does anyone have any idea if this ever went to trial???

SLIM: Don't forget that while your mythical friend is getting all those things regulated, that he should include the banning of slender women from the modelling industry.

[Topaz]

Here's more info. on what happened to the trucker and the laws concerning smoking in the workplace. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/200...aws-091008.html

[Oleg Bach]

A trucker was fined 305.00 for smoking inside his truck because under the new smoking law, its deemed your workplace and illegal. If you are a farmer with a closed in cab, you can't smoke, if your business is at home, can you smoke there, maybe not. Anywhere your workplace is, it not illegal. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/200...ine-091008.html

Once they outlaw tobacco then they can enforce laws to curb the use of the drug. It is not an illegal substance- nor is alcohol..nor is highly addictive pharma product. Refined sugar in large amounts along with large dozes of sodium are also dangerous but still they are legal substances. Second hand smoke is NOT as thick as first hand...it may be slightly poisonous but only because of additives added to addict...in the old times I remember when tobacco was a pure and sweet substance...Old times would refere to it as not a deadly habit but a "filthy one" It was dirty - they could QUIT at will...they would simply toss the pack aside and that was that.

Now with all the poisonous additions to increase what was once a mild addiction to a hard and harsh one smoking has been really corrupted...If the powers that be want to do some good - go into the archives of all the big tobacco companies and REMOVE all the posions that they added over the years...and maybe sue the families of the bastard chemists that added this shit.

[Topaz]

I've been told that the cigarettes the First Nations sell are healthy than the ones buy at a store because they don't put all the toxics in them and maybe why they are cheaper too.

[Slim MacSquinty]

The next debate will be pop, because of child obesity and the very minor link to sugary pop, they want to tax pop. Again people are too stupid to make the decision I made not to drink pop, so they should be punished for their stupidity and MADE to conform to my way of thinking. Despite the fact there is no evidence that sugar actually is killing anyone. I don't see them taxing salt yet, it actually does kill people.