While we recently discussed criticism of the evolving “nanny state” in England, it appears that Canada may also have a degree of runaway paternalistic regulations. Truck driver Brad Weber, 44, was fined recently for smoking in his workplace. Of course, his workplace is the cab of his truck, which he owns and operates alone.
Nevertheless, bureaucrats in Canada defined the truck as a covered workplace and fined him for smoking while driving.
He was noticed with a cigarette in his lips when he passed a police officer.
The Smoke-Free Ontario Act states that “no person shall smoke tobacco or hold lighted tobacco in any enclosed public place or enclosed workplace.”
For the full story, click here
FF Leo,
My experience with LEO’s has generally been on the Professional side. I have one or two I would consider acquaintances not friends because I was a defense attorney. I have seen the US Attorneys office lose a case and then all of a sudden the Attorney that beat them fair and square either had, traffic problems (pulled over anytime they left the office) or full blown investigations by the IRS seizing the office computers etc.
These were not fun and games. I have socialized with a few because they were married to people I went to college with or a colleague. Heck, even a secretary married a Special Operations Division officer. It was kinda funny when he would take her out for lunch and come to the office. I did have clients that got scared. I had a few that I knew were honest and played by the ruless.
I appreciate what you have said. It restores some faith in me and the system that employs such folk as you.
I Remain.
I am simply concerned with the loss of personal freedoms in the U.S.
If I am walking down the street and I see people smoking where they have a legal right to smoke in public–such as outside–I will cross the street to avoid their fumes. However, if I do not have that option and cannot turn around, I will take a deep breath and hold it until I am clear of the smoke. Those smokers have the same rights as I do in those public places and I am willing to take measures to avoid them but I would not and should not be able to deny their lawful act to smoke, although I have complete disdain for all smokers.
If this “nanny state” nonsense continues, we all will fit in some prohibited category at some point. I can see the time when there is a jailing of a scared little old bag lady for “whistling in the dark” by violating some quite time ordinance while she walks hurriedly down the crime-ridden streets of Gary, Indiana…
This has gotten out of hand and it overshadows some real problems. People in Los Angeles complaining about smokers on the street. “The children the children”. LA has the worst air in the country. That brown haze you see in the sky, guess what? It’s not cigarette smoke! I live in Long Beach which has even worse air due to the harbor and and if your raising your kid here your a fool. The incidence of higher respiratory ailments here among children is staggering and none of it is caused by cigarette smoke!
FFLEO:
“Soon we will be discriminating against all manner of perceived human failings by issuing fines for being too fat, too skinny, too ugly, too smart, too whatever…”
It is already here, I think I read that in Montgomery County, MD you cannot smoke in your front yard.
So if I work out of a home office I can’t smoke in my own home? Good Game Canada, way to write crappy, overreaching laws. I guess they learned from the best.
FFLEO,
I’ve got to echo AY’s comment. For an old Republican conservative coot, in today’s climate you would be one Left Wing Lawman. Just half kidding though, because the truth is your views represent those of a true Conservative, rather than these wannabe clowns running around today.
FF LEO,
I could not agree more. You seem too reasonable for a LEO of today’s stadards.
I will not enter a restaurant that allows smoking and I loathe the smell of lingering tobacco smoke in a smoker’s vehicle and on his clothes. However, this fine is going too far. What is next, entering a smoker’s home and fining them?
I oppose all drinking of alcoholic beverages; however, that does not give me the right to object to others’ responsible use when it does not lead to serious violations of drunken driving and other crimes of drunkenness.
Soon we will be discriminating against all manner of perceived human failings by issuing fines for being too fat, too skinny, too ugly, too smart, too whatever…
Ah, this leaves no stretch of indignation to one who smokes.