Trucker smoked for lighting up
p2pnet news view | Freedom:- Even smokers wouldn’t deny repeatedly inhaling deeply toxic smoke from burning leaves mixed with carcinogenic substances can’t be anything but bad.
Very bad.
But of all addictions, smoking is one of the hardest to break and people still struggling with the Big Tobacco demon are victims who deserve our sympathy.
However, anti-smoking zealots often seem to think people who still smoke do it because they want to, and some tobacco abolitionists go to ridiculous extremes in demanding measures meant to keep smoke from cigarettes, cigars, pipes, etc, from polluting the atmosphere.
In Ontario, Canada, the Smoke-Free act states “no person shall smoke tobacco or hold lighted tobacco in any enclosed public place or enclosed workplace”.
So when an Ontario man was smoked by provincial police constable OPP constable Shawna Coulter for lighting up in the workplace, he perhaps shouldn’t have been surprised —-
—- except his workplace was his truck.
Now, other drivers from across Canada are “fuming” as word spread that “police hit a driver with a $305 fine for smoking in his rig,” says the Windsor Star, going on:
“Essex County OPP stopped the tractor-trailer … around noon after noticing the lone driver headed down Highway 401 in Lakeshore with a cigarette between his lips.
“The officer ticketed the 48-year-old London driver for smoking in an enclosed workplace.”
Coulter is quoted as saying butting out while driving also eliminates one more distraction, says the story, adding she compared it to, “talking on the phone and driving, which has recently been outlawed”.
“They deemed that to be a distraction,” says Coulter.
“So lighting a cigarette, to me, is a no-brainer. When you’re smoking you’re not paying attention to the road. One, you’re lighting it and you’ve got fire inside a vehicle. Two, you’re going to be butting it out. Whether you butt it out the window or an ashtray, you’re eyes are coming off the road.”
UPDATE: Smoking trucker story – still smokin’
Windsor Star – Trucker busted for smoking in his ‘workplace,’ October 6, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Heck, I’m a rabid non smoker and think this is nuts. Ok, so apart from the alleged distractions above, what about the distraction caused by loss of concentration and irritability by not getting his junky fix? How about crashing his rig because of this?
But then what do you do, if he has a passenger who doesn’t smoke…
I do support banning smoking in other public places and work, such as an office, though.
Smokers should be weened off cigarettes gently, not victimised like this. This reminds me of the pathetic tactics of the anti-car brigade, in fact.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Police should concentrate on solving crime and catching real criminals not this. By the way I do not smoke or condole smoking.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Even as a non smoker, I have to ask “are you kidding me?”
Are you telling me the smoke police are out there ticketing truck drivers that smoke
in their own trucks?
Obviously another form of harrassement by the police , who claim that it’s
a terrible distraction…
couldn’t be anymore distracting than ..say.. driving down the 403 @ 110 k/hr and punching in plate numbers
in a police cruiser computer.
Had enough yet?
I have.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Is M.A.D.D. some way responsible for another inane law?
October 13th, 2009 at 9:58 am
There is more to this story, but anyhow… comes down to provincial law being forced on a federally regulated truckers
It will likely end up in court.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Smoker here, definitely addicted but can’t quit because I enjoy it too much (yes, I -do- enjoy smoking). This is total BS. The smoke-free ontario act has a few good things (like no smoking in enclosed public spaces) but dinging truckers who are on the road all the time for lighting up in the cab is ridiculous, where else are they going to smoke? They can’t pull off to the side of the road all the time, how will they make money? What are the cops thinking? It’s not going to goad people into quitting. Look at the taxes, a pack of smokes costs upwards of $10 or more and people STILL smoke. Forcing someone to quit smoking doesn’t work, it’s like any other addiction, a smoker will quit when a smoker is ready to quit.
What about the smoker’s rights? Where’s the famed Canadian “equity” here?
October 13th, 2009 at 10:17 am
how come its not deemed a distraction for a police officer to use a computer while driving
October 13th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Police often use any tactic to pull a truck over to spot check the drivers paperwork. Looking at logbook and inspection doccuments trying to find a reason to fine the driver. Its simply another officer who dosent like the average lawabiding trucker trying to gouge a hard working man
October 13th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I am a non smoker and I think this is ridiculous. I recently read that due to the recession people are driving slower and so the cops are issuing fewer speeding tickets. You would think that this is what the police want, but in reality speeding tickets are a major source of revenue for them. To coincide with this I have seen more speed traps deployed than ever over the last year. They are getting desperate and to me this ticket is an attempt by the police to secure a new source of cash.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Sorry Jon, I have to disagree with you on this one bigtime based on principle, not whether or not smoking is good or bad for you!
That police officer should be fired for being a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and not using sound judgement in the interests of fighting crime and serving the public at large. This situation is absolutely ridiculous for charging a man for smoking in his rig/temporary residence with nobody else around him to harm. A police state travesty of justice comes to mind!
October 13th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Maybe next time Jon plays a tune in his car or other, the Canadian Mounted RIAA police will ticket him. We will then lecture him on the abuses of listening to music he should have bought and have physically handy, along with proof of purchase.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
does the truck driver also need a license to play music in his “workplace” like hair dressers do?
this makes me sick, the opp should fire the officer and not show up to court when the fine is contested in court.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
What a rude and obnoxious pig!
Well Constable Shawnazi Coldheart
You have made the top of the “I’m an arrogant/judgeMENTAL piece of crap” list
What BS
Get a friggin’ job you understand, OPP work is beyond your ken. You Idiot.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
The implemtation of laws that do not have any basis in common sence is crasy. If there is no one in the work place that can be harmed by second hand smoke then common sence should allow that person to smoke. If I work in my home does the government have the right to come into my house and fine me for smoking? If the business deals with the public or has more than one person in the work place it might make some sence but this case is clearly is foolish. Its to bad police resources are so rediably available to enforce petty offencise. Try to get them to do something about a major crime and it’s like pulling teeth. A friend of mine had his car stolen and he had to beg them to do anything besides take down the report. He searched for and found the vehicle himself and they didn’t even want to take prints or photograph the damage done to the truck. The same young fellow is responsible for the theft of at least two vehicles,two four wheelers,he burnt one of them, and the burning of another mans house. Yet the RCMP have to be forced by the victums to do even the minimun of investigation.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Having been a TEAM Driver and also a smoker & an EX SMOKER I can say I have been in all kinds of situations re. the problems of smoking versus non smoking & how to deal with the dilema of all the problems. I wish I had been charged with this ridiculus charge because when I finished in court I could rest assured that I would walk out a winner!! There is no way that I would lose & the prosecution will have to appeal their LOSS! If the govn’t wants to win then they will have to outlaw the manufacture& selling of ALL TOBACCO produces like they should but……….. we all now the country would go broke in mnths.!!!!!
October 13th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I was a policeman for 31 years and it saddens me to be acquainted to this officer. How can she possibly be trusted on a matter that requires sensitivity and or compassion. This poor display of judgement renders her behaviour and trust useless.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Another SHE-male on a giant POWER TRIP ! Hahahahahahahahahahahah……………!
Worst thing men ever allowed. Putting uniforms on a Sack of Hormones was a Big mistake.
Like that “NUT CASE ” in Nova Scotia who emptied her 9 mm in the walls because Her boyfriend pissed her off.
Now there is a stable individual.
Davebow
October 13th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Another example of the nanny state we are becoming and how loud, self-serving lobby groups are ruining the country. The government loves groups like the more anal non-smoking groups… they rally people for them to cry “take away everyone’s personal rights and freedoms if it makes them conform to our thinkling”… and we are getting exactly what they asked for. 10 to 1 this guy owned his truck.. used to be your vehicle and home were personal sancuaries immune from police monitoring… guess what folks.. no more.. thank the next non-smoker you meet who supports these lobby groups for taking away your last bastion of privacy from the government. Canadians need to stand up (even when it means things you don’t like ) and stop just giving away our rights. If non-smoker attitudes applied to free-speech where the bad comes with the good… none of us would be able to say a thing they did not approve of by now.. think about it.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
im not a smoker, i hate the concept of it but this is a lil too much… next they’re gunna make them wear bright yellow arm bands…
October 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I sympathize with the people who wish to smoke in their vehicles. I think that they should maybe smoke twice as much. I was in engineering from 1979 until retiring in 2000. When I started the group had about 250 people, men and women, half smoked and half didn’t. All put money into the pension plan and when we got our cheques almost half was taken off from deductions for various things. When I retired most of those people who I had associated with who smoked were dead and several more passed away shortly after I left. They never got to enjoy the money that had been put away for their pensions. So, I say – go for it. Smoke em if you have em because none of my family currently smoke and chances are they will get to benefit from all that money put into pensions by the smokers. Just, if you’re going to smoke and die from heart related illnesses or cancer please do it quickly because health care costs can be quite hi. I just want to thank you for your generous donations and giving all of yourself. You’re real heroes. All the best to you and the families you will leave behind. One more thing. When you’re driving your big rigs and are trying to light up another Camel or are fumbling with your BigBucks coffee, or placing a call on your cell phone please try to keep the rig in its proper lane, no swerving into the lanes with the vans full of families with half a dozen kids in them. Thanks for the consideration.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Yet another example of how our government and authorities seem to have difficulty is defining a a law to protect our citizens, and infringement upon decency. If this kind of law is allowed to be enforced unchallenged, this would include people from all walks of life: Real Estate agents, Computer technicians, Couriers, Taxis, even postal workers!! For the OPP not to immediately recind this stupid decision and forceably request a amendment to this law is sheer absurdity. An ‘enclosed workspace’ should only apply to fixed structures, not mobile. Once again, a minority group has been given power far out of proportion to thier size. BTW: I don’t smoke.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
“So lighting a cigarette, to me, is a no-brainer. When you’re smoking you’re not paying attention to the road. One, you’re lighting it and you’ve got fire inside a vehicle. Two, you’re going to be butting it out. Whether you butt it out the window or an ashtray, you’re eyes are coming off the road.”
Probably the most contrived, ridiculous bit of this whole thing.
The same arguments can be applied to drinking coffee or eating take-out food. There’s also no way of measuring the methods by which a person disposes of their finished cigarettes and what it does to their attention to the main task at hand.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
WHERE DID THIS IDIOT “POLICE OFFICER” COME FROM ? MADE IN CHINA, MAYBE.
THIS ONE FELL THROUGH A BIG CRACK. IT SCARES ME SHE CARRIES A GUN…
October 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
So much for a “free” country. No-one is allowed to do anything without some kind of government intervention or taxation anymore
October 13th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
This is insane. The Anti-Smoking lobby is cheering this, they are cheering the constant rise in the price of cigarettes through taxation.
Smokers are people too. I dont care what some fool who thinks they know what is good for me thinks. If I want to smoke, that’s my right. And it’s my right not to be unfairly taxed, fined, or discriminated against.
I wouldnt mind so much if fat people were taxed extra because they are health hazards and slow down the foot traffic on the sidewalks, dumb people who couldn’t read obvious signs were fined an idiot tax (because idiots can easily hurt themselves) along with other crap we ALL deal with every single day, smokers or not.
Its easy to villianize smokers and drinkers for some dumb reason, but not the stupidly overweight people who are at 10 times the risk of cardiovascular disease. If you actually look up statistics you will see that most of the smokers who die of heart disease are actually overweight too. The thin or average size ones have only slightly higher risk than the rest of the non-overweight population. The increased risk of lunch cancer is unique to smokers, but we’re not talking about 1 in three smokers, more like 1 in 25 versus 1 in 1000 for the rest of the population.
Smokers should start voting with their cigarettes. Make it an election issue. In a minority federal government, a swath of the 18% of the population that smokes plus maybe the other 10% that symathizes with them could really make some serious changes.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Garbage, I agree with the other commenters here. I hope the driver sues for invasion of privacy (his truck IS his home away from home), home invasion, emotion stress and damages, psychological stress and damages, etc. He should speak to a lawyer and demand billions, and I hope he wins.
All our laws are against the people and FOR the big companies (eg. mandatory auto insurance).
We need a new system, I vote anarchy. Damn conservatives are wasting millions on attack ads on tv AND IT’S NOT AN ELECTION YEAR. I hope the governor general sides with Ignatieffs no confidence motion against Harper.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I totally agree with the truck driver getting a ticket for smoking in his rig. I already got rid of my car radio, my car rear view mirror, side mirrors, headlight switch, coffee cup holder, air conditioner, heater….. Because one day I might be distracted and get into an accident. Thank you government for the laws you have created, and the police who enforce it. By the way, I’m thinking of trading in my car for a bike, I feel it’s MUCH safer in the city than a car.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
To Ex long hauler
You mentioned if the government made it illegal to manufacture and sell tobacco products they would go broke. I don’t know about that but in China there has been similar discussions because they have a terrible amount of smoking related lung disease and heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, and the list goes on. They also have a huge population, around 1.3 billion. A huge amount of people are involved in manufacture, distribution, and sales of tobacco products there. They wanted to ban all of that but realized that they would be in a pickle if they did so. The unemployed people and the smokers (without their supplies) would cause endless stability problems (social unrest) and so they had to drop the idea.
It’s amazing to me that an addiction like smoking can take precedence over the sure knowledge that smoking markedly shortens human life and also the joy of life. I’m so very glad that smokers are no longer allowed to smoke in public places, stores, and in work spaces shared with others. That is a huge step forward and has not come without struggle. Many thanks to those who have pushed hard to bring that about. Those of you who smoke and actually believe you are invincible I will yet get to walk on your graves. If you are in your fifties you will already be aware of smokers around 60 in your work place who are sick or have passed on. You will know people in that age range who if you shake their hand the flesh is cold because they suffer from cardio vascular disease. The blood is no longer properly reaching all the edges of their body. Some unfortunate people with bad genes can suffer from that, too, and yet still live long lives but it is an indicator.
You who are threatening law suites and saying nasty things about the highway patrol officer should be glad that person is courageous enough to do the job. Many of the people I worked with are still alive because several years ago the company we worked for told the employees smoking was no longer allowed in the work place including company vehicles. Many of those people decided it was a time to quit and did. Those people are drawing a pension still. It’s that simple. There are a few people who break the odds and smoke into their 80’s and live but they are few. How lucky do you feel? There is a really cold calculated reason why OAP was calculated to start at age 65. Several years ago stats showed that the pension would have to be paid out to under 20% of the population because the rest would be flower food. Over the past few years governments have been getting concerned because more people are eating better, exercising, and not smoking. Many are living to their 90’s. The fear is that pensions may suck the life out of the coffers. Hence, the thought is to raise the pension age. If we can convince people to smoke at home and smoke more we can retain this 65 year pension. I say go fo it, just don’t smoke around me. Thanks!
October 13th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The police are not here to protect us.
The Government is not here to serve the people.
We are servants to be abused by our masters.
People should not be afraid of their Government,
The Government should be afraid of the people.
We need to stand on guard against this tyrany.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
If you look at the smoke free Ontario act
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/health/smoke_free/background.asp
It specifically bans smoking in vehicles used for work. How this important piece of the story is left out of the article is beyond me. The police officer is applying the law exactly as it is written. Whether or not the law is fair is besides the point, and is another thing to discuss, but all the people who are complaining about the officer in question, saying he should be fired, have no idea what they are talking about
October 13th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Doarst
You say the police are not here to protect us? Surely you jest. Without the police catching those who speed, who drive while intoxicated, those who choose to steal what others have rather than acquire through hard work we would be complaining bitterly that life was unfair and that governments should be doing something about it.
You say government is not here to serve people. Well, sometimes certain individuals within government choose to forget that they are there to serve. Without government we would not have taxation. Oh I know, it’s a pain. Without taxation we would not have roads or the police or basic medical care, probably not educational institutions like schools and universities either. Government is what governs and like it or not we need it. Children can get pretty wild when in day care but with leadership from the teachers the kids do just fine. If you ask them what they would like to do they all have different ideas and if you say O/K go do it they start to move but quickly get a look on their faces like “what do I do next?” If, instead, you have a plan and tell them how to carry out a task as a group it generally gets done with nary a hitch. It’s much like that for us as adults but on a grander scale. Government governs. It helps coordinate all the bits, or is supposed to.
You say we are servants to be abused by our masters. If you feel we are being abused and you have some great ideas to share on how things can be improved then put yourself up for election and get yourself a seat. If your ideas are faulty chances are you will never get to be promoted to the point where others can vote for you. If that is so then maybe you should rethink your thought processes, maybe you have some flaws of your own to work out. The world has need of “good” leaders and it has need of the masses to support the good leaders. What would you like to be?
You are right when you say people should not fear their government and that members of government should be afraid of the people. Maybe a more correct view would be that government should be respectful to the people it serves and the people will respect them back.
You say we need to stand on guard against tyranny but I say we should stand on guard against anarchy. Anarchy is when society breaks down, government and the people don’t respect each other, nothing useful gets accomplished, people are hurt, and a new dark ages takes over. That is what we need to stand in guard against. We have seen it in our time in places like the former Yugoslavia and various mid east and African countries. It’s not something that only happened in the distant past.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
This message is a reply to NORTHERNSCOUT:
With a comment like that, I wonder what skeletons you have in your closet. You actually wish for people to die!!!
If you are fat, or like to eat junk food, or drive a car, or drink alcohol, or take substances that alter your mind (legal or not), or are a couch potato, or surf the internet a little too much, or watch too much TV, or watch pornography, I would send the cops over to your house and give you a 305$ ticket just for being plain stupid.
Everyone knows that cigarettes are bad for you. But so are all the things mentioned above. I guess you feel your on your moral high horse, and feel the need to boost your ego by making insane comments like that. Would you make the same argument for the above mentioned things? You must be a frustrated ex-smoker, that’s o.k. I understand.
But wait until the government gets you on what your hiding in your closet, then you will see. Start saving 305$ today!!
October 13th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Northernscout: While your arguments may hold some truth, they appear to be rather speculative. The officer’s reasoning as presented in this quote: (“So lighting a cigarette, to me, is a no-brainer… ”) was clearly not a cause to stop someone and give them a ticket. Anything can be a distraction, your kids can be a distraction, your wife/hustband can be a distraction. Should we ban them? Your talking friend can be a distraction, should we ban them? The truth of the matter is, we cannot enforce people from getting distracted. People have to make the right choices for themselves, and when a driver makes a mistake, that is when they need to pay for it.
I am not going to comment on smoking being good or bad, however I will say that the officer in question should have put her time to better use. From my own experience I know that it really hits on the nerves when you get pulled over by an officer. I would think that after getting charged with something this personal, the driver was upset and had to continue his course while being upset. That creates a dangerous driver, and a truck driver is less likely to stop and relax. The police officer clearly did not think ahead about the situation, and aggravating a truck driver may have long term consequences on the road.
If an officer has reason to believe that the driver shouldn’t be smoking, give the guy a warning. Don’t ruin his day, and try to be compassionate. Police officers serve the public, and they must never forget that.
* For those of you who don’t know, talking on the phone in Ontario is not outlawed, as of October 26 2009, headsets will be required to talk on the phone. Another useless law.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
The officer was doing her/his job. The laws was created by politicians, not the police. When laws are in place and over looked by police, they are viewed as not doing their job. The people that have nothing good to say about police should not call the police when they want to report something. And they usually report something because of their own stupidity or whining about the neighbors dog barking and they can’t get off the couch to knock on the neighbors door. Whine to politicians that create the laws and these are the politicians that your communities voted in.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
You know what gets to me about the smoking Nazi’s? Is the fact they whine about secondhand smoke but don’t think twice about sitting in their cars and inhaleing exhaust fumes.Try to take their cars away from em and see how they react.
Also to Terrible Article Says:It specifically bans smoking in vehicles used for work
I think if you research a little further you’ll find they excluded Tractor-trailers from that law.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
GrBoldies, Here is a link to the text of the smokefree ontario act
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_94t10_e.htm
Please tell me where in that law it excludes tractor trailers.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Don’t mean to be blunt, but that female cop is an idiot. Of the first degree. And I don’t smoke, either.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“Whether you butt it out the window or an ashtray, you’re eyes are coming off the road.”
Then ban radios, GPS, and A/C
October 13th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I’m a non smoker, but it this type of thing makes truckers pull over every half hour to take their smoke break. That will be extreamly more dangerous then lighting up in the rig. Large trucks pulling on and off the side of the 401 is a scary thought, but thats what this is going to do. There are alot of trucks on the road and alot of truckers smoke. Get real Opp, leave the truckers alone or people will die.
Jimmy wanting a safe highway, not a truck smoke break lot.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
This is totally bull crap, do the police have nothing better to do then pull over people for smoking. If smoking is such a bad distraction I guess the cops should stop going to coffee shops and getting their coffee and donuts to go so they can cruise around I do believe drinking coffee and eating is way more of a distraction.
And then in another week they will start to pull us over for talking on a cell phone as we are trying to find directions to places, even thou they can talk all they want on their personal phones while on duty without anything being done to them.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
well, i just quit recently after too many years. it’s hard.
i used to drive trucks and smoking or listening to the radio is the only thing you can do sometimes to not get bored. i know, it’s an excuse but it’s the only one i had.
anyway, cops aren’t supposed to interpret the law. they’re supposed to enforce it – unfortunately this cop doesn’t know the difference.
i live where there are still smoking sections in restaurants and you can still smoke in a bar.
but as for distractions, how about all of those internet, gps, dvd players and dashboard/headrest tvs that now seem to be standard in all new cars? how can the law allow that?
that’s what’s really crazy.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
What a fuckin’ liberty!
October 13th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Think of the all people who work at home and smoke.
I hope they all get busted as well. SWAT should be banging down the doors of known smokers and busting them and/or fining them.
No different.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Who is going to stop these harassments by our police? how can we be cutting education funding when there are police out there wasting our tax money on pissing it away on officers that are not working FOR THE PEOPLE. She needs to publicly ask for forgiveness.
FOR THE PEOPLE
FOR THE PEOPLE
FOR THE PEOPLE
FOR THE PEOPLE
FOR THE PEOPLE
FOR THE PEOPLE
FOR THE PEOPLE
FOR THE PEOPLE
FOR THE PEOPLE
October 13th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Wow. You people suck. Everyone just instantly jumps to extremes. Anti-female posts. Claims that the government relies entirely on tobbacco tax. Anti-police statements. The law is the law. Follow it. Who cares if this guy got a ticket? It’s not wasting tax dollars. The only reason it is, is because he’s crying about it. So don’t blame the police, blame him. The way I see it, is this is just one more incentive to quit smoking. I wouldn’t have a problem with people smoking, if they just did it away from everyone else, and just died on their own instead of wasting our healthcare money. So lighten up, and quit complaining. The only person to blame here is the trucker.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Jon, your article is inaccurate. Const. Coulter is the OPP spokesperson, not the ticketing officer.
BTW the ticketing officer had recently been reprimanded for smoking in their cruiser, and decided that pulling over a big-rig and fining the driver for smoking in his vehicle would be their way to force the issue into a debate. This is totally improper conduct for an officer. This is also against existing OPP guidelines for traffic stops.
The fact is, pulling over ANY vehicle on that highway puts the public, the driver, and the officer in significant danger. Accidents within 500m of a traffic stop are COMMON, and there are statistics that are publicly available every year that show this.
Anyone who thinks it’s worth-while to allow officers to make traffic stops based on this type of petty nonsense should give their head a shake. We’ve had officers and uninvolved motorists KILLED in accidents caused by traffic stops, one happened just about 7 years ago only 3 kms from where this trucker was pulled over.
NEVER FORGET, there are two kinds of tyranny — the kind perpetrated by evil men, and the kind perpetrated by those who THINK they are helping people. The evil men will occasionally have a shred of mercy and take a break, but the nanny-state do-gooders WILL NEVER STOP and will convince otherwise well-intentioned yet gullible people to participate.
Ontario IS becoming a police-state. Things have being going bad ever since disgraced Toronto top-cop Fantino was appointed OPP commissioner by our brilliant leader Dalton McGuinty.
No matter how bad a police state gets, there will always be fools that support it as evidenced by the above comment.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
And DF, I would like to know how you’re eating these days? Are you getting your 8 servings of fruits and vegetables? Because if you’re not, I believe you should be held accountable. After all, your poor nutrition may be costing us HEALTHCARE DOLLARS. Time for the gov’t to start making laws regulating your food intake, right? If an officer spots you in McDs with a super-size meal, I think it would be justified if he pulled you over…..
I’m always amazed at the leaps of logic some people will take to defend the clearly wrong actions of the gov’t and police officers. They always resort to namby-pamby arguments involving ancillary issues such as public healthcare and tax dollars.
The issue at hand is: should an officer perform a traffic stop to enforce petty workplace smoking laws even though traffic stops create a safety hazard? Not taxes, and not the healthcare system.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
The law is the law and the law is always right because its the law.
right ?
we need to always obey the law without question because its the law
right ?
the law can never be wrong.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:46 am
the anti-smoking ppl got there win. lets outlaw radios, cig lighters, and A/C in every car, but lets not stop there, automatic/manual windows. wiperblades. passanger/rear seats, (cause we all know that passengers are a distraction) vents ( manual choke, oldie but a goodie).
i cant belive a cop is going to tell me i cant use an option in MY OWN CAR. this is more than insain. this is now a “police state”.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:57 am
What if his truck had children inside with him?
October 14th, 2009 at 1:09 am
i believe ppl who smoke in there car with children SHOULD get fined, but he was alone.
you would think the police have better things to do than harrasing ppl.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:30 am
“Whether you butt it out the window or an ashtray, your eyes are coming off the road.”
Good lord. We better remove speedometers too then, can’t have people taking their eyes off the road to check their speed. And the fuel gauge. Oh, and mirrors, checking your blind spot is surely a distraction to looking ahead. And anything else that provides information to the driver, it’s just gotta go.
It’s asinine to suggest a driver’s eyes must be straight ahead 100% of the time.
Let the truckers smoke in their cab, who else are they hurting?
October 14th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Another case of anti-smokers taking things too far. If the truck has a cab there it could also be considered a residence. That’s beside the point really.
People bitch and moan about clean air but do nothing to stop the worst forms of pollution. Mainly car exhaust, oil refineries, coal power plants, factory exhaust, nuclear testing and rocket launches. Where are the lawsuits for them? I’d love to see a class action lawsuit for GM,Ford,Chrysler,Exxon,BP patrolium,Halliburton and Nasa charged with crimes against humanity.
Instead what you get is corporate bailouts, politically supported tax cuts, and highly touted scientific achievements.
Personally I think the whole thing is asinine. If you want to fix a problem look to the larger issue…
October 14th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Its not about smoking, its about freedom. How many stupid laws do we as citizens have to put up with? The government is telling you how to live your life. It wants to control your body and what you put in it. And it doesn’t matter which government, they all do the same. Why? Because a lot of over paid people have to look busy. And government is all about control. The smoking laws where fine, but some busy body has to ratchet it up a notch. Crime is down something like 30% since 1990, but the laws keep coming. C-15 is a fine example. For that matter, the prohibition of drugs is another stupid idea. Visit LEAP.cc for info on that. We all know the dangers of smoking, I’m an adult, I can make up my own mind, maybe I don’t want to live to be 100. As long as you aren’t hurting anyone or causing damage to property, the government should butt out.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:08 am
I’m a non-smoker, though my father smokes and has tried many times to quit. It seems it’s about as easy to ditch as a heroin addiction and I feel sorry for those who are trying hard to do so. The only smokers I hate are the inconsiderate ones who don’t believe second hand smoke can be deadly. Personally I feel this is a case of harassment, plain and simple. I also agree with those wondering why using a computer to type in plate numbers while driving a police cruiser is considered safe. Hopefully he will get his day in court and not end up with a biased judge who doesn’t smoke.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:16 am
” The only smokers I hate are the inconsiderate ones who don’t believe second hand smoke can be deadly. ”
please link to documented proof of this claim.
please link to any if any exist deaths that are proven to be caused by second hand smoke and no othe rcause. see if you can do it without calling names. you can’t because there is no documented proof that hasn’t been disproven.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:35 am
the only nonsmokers i hate are the ones that try to cover up proof that non
smokers are wrong about second hand smoke risk
http://www.junkscience.com/news/wpetsver.html
A new study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer has been hailed by the tobacco industry as proof that there is no risk from secondhand smoke, and that it may have even a protective effect against cancer. Many newspapers overseas, including the Times of London, have reported on the study, which is still undergoing peer review and has not been published officially. The industry has accused the study’s sponsors, the World Health Organization (WHO), of trying to bury the research.
trying to bury the reasearch ? i’m not surprised. anti smokers are like religious zealots. lying in the name of truth.
October 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Like I said my dad is a smoker. More accurately he’s a heavy smoker and my poor mom has it the worst. She’s in her 60’s now and has smokers cough even though she has never been a smoker. I had asthma while I was growing up and it went away shortly after moving out. This is about the time he started his (many failed) attempts at quitting. Personally I think my dad smokes because his father did. Unsurprisingly my grandfather died of lung cancer a few years ago and I’m betting my dad will die of the same cause. If smoking filtered cigarettes is proven to be bad for you, what must if then be like for those constantly exposed day after day to second hand smoke? You should see what the ceiling looks like in their home too, all yellowed and ugly, especially in the bedroom where he smokes the most. It used to be a white ceiling. I’ve seen actual lungs of both a smoker and non-smoker side by side and it’s not pretty at all.
So you see, I don’t care about studies because I don’t really need them. I have my own unique perspective based on common sense and personal experience. Just like my feelings about movie reviews, the only opinion that matters to me is my own. I share it only because I can, not because I want change peoples minds or think everybody is wrong. I’m not a non-smoker zealot at all and abhor childish name calling. I’m totally for freedom of choice and liberty. If you want to kill yourself, go right ahead. I honestly don’t care. All that I ask is that you please don’t make the mistake of assuming it gives you the right to take me with you. Like someone eloquently wrote just the other day, the freedom to swing your arms wildly about ends at my face. You’re free to exercise any right you have so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Feel free to light up anywhere but around me, thanks.
October 16th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Perhaps a 48 hr Walk out by the industry in its entirety would send a message