Smokers..

[logic]

So, basically when I walk down the street Its okay to get smoke blown in my face?

At least when you drink you're not harming others.

Sure, Drinking and Driving, or Alcohol fueled violence, at least you can defend yourself from that.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

So, basically when I walk down the street Its okay to get smoke blown in my face?

At least when you drink you're not harming others.

Sure, Drinking and Driving, or Alcohol fueled violence, at least you can defend yourself from that.

[McMillan]

Seriously I can't stand listening to all you non-smokers complaining about smokers. I am a non-smoker and even I have sense enough to realize that smokers have rights too. They have the right to smoke out in public just as you have the right not to.

[allkill326]

...For You smokers, Next time could you please not come and stand right beside me and blow smoke in my face to the point where I have to move?, I don't even care if it's a few feet away from me, if the winds blowing in my direction, you better believe it's hitting my face and it's such a piss off! why the F should I have to move because of your stupid habbit? ... just next time, be more considerate of others..and before you start an arguement about pollution and what not, take it from an asthmatic, nothing it worse.

Thanks,

/End Rant

[Wetcoaster]

Seriously I can't stand listening to all you non-smokers complaining about smokers. I am a non-smoker and even I have sense enough to realize that smokers have rights too. They have the right to smoke out in public just as you have the right not to.

[aGENT]

Seriously I can't stand listening to all you non-smokers complaining about smokers. I am a non-smoker and even I have sense enough to realize that smokers have rights too. They have the right to smoke out in public just as you have the right not to.

[ronthecivil]

Apparently young 'uns are adopting an old habit... smokeless tobacco (aka spit tobacco, chew, pinch or dip) in the mistaken belief that cancer is not an issue. Wrong.

Quick question. Have you noticed teenage girls spitting in the street lately, or wondered about young males walking around with their upper lip poking out?

Chances are they’re using smokeless tobacco, also known as spit tobacco, chew, pinch or dip. If smokeless tobacco keeps trending with teenagers, the guy who invents a stylish spittoon that attaches to a smartphone will make a fortune.

Imagine parents’ chagrin when they find out junior is chawin’ baccy. They spent thousands on orthodontists so their son would have a blinding smile. Now his teeth look like they were dipped in henna.

Chewing tobacco is a revolting habit and far from harmless. But that’s not how teens see it.

They know smoking cigarettes is addictive. But they think smokeless is OK, because they’re not lighting cigarettes and inhaling carcinogens. No smoking, no cancer! The truth is, smokeless tobacco is a significant cause of oral cancer, pancreatic cancer and esophageal cancer.

In California, where all trends begin, sales of chewing tobacco and other smokeless products have been climbing for the past 10 years.

In 2010, smokeless tobacco use among high school students in California grew to almost four per cent, up from 3.1 in 2004.

Health Canada’s tobacco-use monitoring survey for 2010 shows the smoking rate among youths aged 15 to 17 was nine per cent — the lowest ever recorded. But eight per cent of Canadians 15 years and older reported having tried smokeless tobacco products in 2010. Five per cent of youth, or about 119,000 teens aged 15 to 19 and 10 per cent of young adults (about 228,000) aged 20 to 24, reported ever using smokeless tobacco.

Part of the appeal of snus, a popular smokeless product, is that teenagers can use it undetected while sitting in the classroom.

How cool is that?

Snus, pronounced “snooze,” resemble tiny, white, tea bags filled with tobacco. No spitting is required with snus, which typically are tucked under the upper lip near the gum line where little or no saliva is generated. Nicotine is absorbed directly through the gum, or users can swallow the juice for a quick nicotine hit. Snus last about an hour — long enough to get students through a boring physics class.

Dissolvable smokeless products such as orbs and strips are even sneakier. The orbs look like Tic Tacs, and the strips are similar in appearance to dissolvable breath-mint strips.

There are fewer government restrictions on the sale of smokeless tobacco products, so tobacco companies have been spending hugely to promote them.

In 2010, in the U.S., the tobacco industry spent $444 million on advertising and marketing smokeless tobacco products.

The companies claim their ads are aimed at adults, yet the range of flavours available in smokeless tobacco products seems designed for the teenage palate: apple, berry, cherry, citrus, spearmint, peach, winterchill, frost, and that’s just a sampling.

So far, there’s no Count Chocula Chewing Tobacco or Boo Berry Snus, but maybe those are in the works.

I started smoking at 18, partly for the mystique and partly because cultural cues told me it was manly. I quit a few years later to impress a girl who wasn’t keen on cuddling up to someone who reeked of cigarettes.

Whenever I catch a whiff of tobacco smoke now, it takes me back to earlier times of youth, adventure and mischief. I remember sneaking a smoke on the back steps of my high school and getting caught. I remember buying ciggies from a vending machine at a pool room where no one cared if you were underage.

It was hard to give up my Export A filters, and it took months to adjust to having a cup of coffee without a cigarette. There didn’t seem to be any point to sipping coffee without a smoke in my other hand.

I’m generally wrong about everything, but I can’t see smokeless tobacco taking hold of pop culture the way cigarettes did in the last century. Can you imagine James Bond offering a lady his tin of snus? Or Emma Stone daintily directing a stream of tobacco juice at a spittoon?

Me neither.

http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz2JrI4OzL2

[Wetcoaster]

Probably because you don't have to worry about the second hand smoke police coming to get you. And while it might still be harmful and disgusting last I checked it's not illegal to be disgusting.

Though you never know. When I was in Australia and New Zealand I discovered that they had outlawed chew.

The puritans are never happy it seems.

[ronthecivil]

In the City of Vancouver spitting out the tobacco juice would be an offence - right before the smoking ban.

SECTION 2

HEALTH REGULATIONS

Ban on certain behaviours

2.1 A person must not expectorate, urinate, or defecate on or in any street or other public place, except in a location in a public building or facility provided specifically for such purpose.

http://former.vancou...ylaws/9535c.PDF

[pwnstar]

Wanna know what grinds my gears?

People who smoke with kids in their car and the windows rolled up during a traffic jam. I feel like smacking upside the head.

[Wetcoaster]

Wanna know what grinds my gears?

People who smoke with kids in their car and the windows rolled up during a traffic jam. I feel like smacking upside the head.

[Wetcoaster]

I previousy posted about the family (father, mother and son) who were smoking on board a Sunwing flight that resulted in the flight being diverted from the Dominican Republic to Bermuda.

The family have been identified as David MacNeil, 54, Darlene MacNeil, 52, and David MacNeil Jr., 22 of Cape Breton and they appeared in court in Bermuda where the father and mother pleaded guilty. After the pleas they were on their way back to Canada.

It now appears that Sunwing will be suing this family of idiots for damages for costs incurred with an amount approaching $50,000 to the airline.

Two of three family members accused of smoking during a Sunwing flight that left Halifax for the Dominican Republic on Friday were sentenced in Bermuda court today after their plane was forced to make an emergency landing on the island.

David MacNeil, 54, Darlene MacNeil, 52, and David MacNeil Jr., 22, appeared in plea court in Hamilton, Bermuda, Monday after they were accused of smoking on a flight. All three were charged with disobeying lawful commands under the Air Navigation (Overseas Territories) Order.

Owain Johnston-Barnes, a reporter for Bermuda's Royal Gazette who was in the Hamilton court Monday, said the three MacNeils are from Mabou, Cape Breton, and that the family lives together off of Route 19.

MacNeil Sr. pleaded guilty to behaving in a disorderly manner and using abusive and insulting words. Darlene MacNeil pleaded guilty to disobeying lawful commands. David MacNeil Jr. was charged with smoking on the plane, but he denied the charge in court Monday.

Prosecutors decided not to proceed further with the charges, so in the end, no one was found guilty of smoking on the plane.

The two eldest MacNeils were sentenced to either a $500 fine or 10 days in prison. MacNeil Jr. was free to go.

Johnston-Barnes said the family appeared embarrassed during their court appearance. The family's lawyer, Victoria Pearman, described the incident as something that got out of hand and escalated beyond their control.

The flight was diverted Friday night after a passenger alerted the crew about the alleged smokers.

Daryl McWilliams, vice-president of media relations for Sunwing, said a fourth MacNeil family member, a teen, was not accused of smoking on the flight.

Dwayne Caines, a spokesman for the Bermuda Police Service, said at least one of the MacNeils became verbally abusive in the cabin.

Coarse language

Johnston-Barnes said police told him MacNeil Sr. was the one who became verbally abusive.

MacNeil Sr. is alleged to have said, "You f---ing ass----, I just pissed all over the floor," according to Caines.

Caines said all three accused disobeyed Sunwing crew members.

McWilliams said it's hard to understand what the three were thinking.

"My understanding is that these passengers were smoking in their seats, which is unusual to say the least," said McWilliams.

"It's been 20 years since people were allowed to smoke on an aircraft. The only thing I can think of [is] maybe they wanted to stage some sort of display that 'we're opposed to this law.'"

They were putting other people's lives at risk, the airline spokesman said.

Sunwing plans to sue, says spokesperson

McWilliams said on Monday that Sunwing plans to sue the MacNeils for costs associated with diverting the plane.

"We’re going to sue them," he said. "It’s something that we don’t do very often. We do it in cases where we think the activity has been flagrant. It usually requires going beyond verbal abuse."

McWilliams estimates that the cost of diverting the flight could be as much as $50,000. He said those costs include:

Landing fees at Bermuda airport.

Flying a mechanic to Bermuda to examine the aircraft for defects (standard operating procedure for overweight planes.)

Cost to hire crew to search plane for cigarette butts to make sure they were extinguished.

Accommodations for passengers and crew overnight in Bermuda.

Accommodations for passengers scheduled to fly home from the Dominican Republic on the diverted plane.

McWilliams said since the plane had to land before its scheduled destination, it was overweight due to the unburned fuel on board.

He said MacNeil family members were not co-operative, which is why the company had to pay a crew to search for cigarette butts.

"The passengers involved in this ridiculous situation refused to say what they did with their cigarettes so that meant that there was a potentially hazardous material, which was an incendiary, onboard the aircraft," said McWilliams

Dave Shellington's wife, Cathy, was on the plane. The Charlottetown man said she texted him to tell him there was a lot of screaming and swearing.

The rest of the plane's 170 passengers and crew members were put up for the night in a hotel at Sunwing's expense.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/02/04/ns-smoking-family-bermuda-sunwing-court.html

And:

Daryl McWilliams, vice-president of media relations with Sunwing, told CBC News that the airline plans to sue the family that was involved in Friday's incident, and added that costs are approaching $50,000.

That bill includes having to put up the passengers and seven crew members in a hotel overnight, and paying a different crew to search the plane for extinguished cigarettes because the alleged smokers refused to say what they did with them.

The airline also had to send a mechanic to inspect the plane because it had too much fuel onboard and landed overweight, triggering a requirement under Canadian transport regulations, McWilliams said.

The plane was scheduled to pick up passengers in the DR who also had to be put up in hotels overnight Friday.

A diverted flight can also generate plenty of headaches and costs for passengers who miss pre-booked events, business meetings or time with friends and family.

'[it] depends on size of the aircraft and number of passengers on board, severity and operational consequences.'

—Perry Flint, International Air Transport Association

Australia's Qantas airline said it incurred $125,000 in expenses after a Sydney to Tokyo flight dumped nearly 60,000 litres of fuel before landing in northern Australia in December.

In that incident, a man allegedly lit a cigarette in the bathroom before punching and spitting at a crew member.

Perry Flint, from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), said there is no average cost for diversions. However, he said they typically range between $10,000 and $200,000.

"This depends on the size of the aircraft and number of passengers on board, severity and operational consequences: delays, passengers' resulting misconnections, flight cancellation and the cost of hotels/meals for passengers and crew," Flint, head of IATA’s corporate communications for the Americas, said in an email to CBC News.

Not all unscheduled landings prompted by unruly passengers, however, end up being so costly, Sunwing's McWilliams said.

Sometimes a plane will land, unruly passengers are taken off by authorities and the flight takes off again for its original destination.

Nor are these incidents necessarily a result of too much drinking at cruising altitude.

"I can tell you the most common reason for an unscheduled landing, by far, is a medical emergency," McWilliams said, adding that in such situations the airline never attempts to recoup expenses.

Those incidents are also quick, he said, because medical staff are usually already at the airport waiting to receive the passenger.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/02/04/f-unruly-passengers-diverted-flight-costs.html

[thehun]

As far as I'm concerned it's indefensible for anyone born in the last 40 years to smoke. With all we know about the human body, and what damages it, combined with what we know about what is in cigarettes it is completely unjustifiable as to why anyone would willingly want to smoke.

I agree with the rest of you, keep that sh*t away from me, join the homeless and back alley hookers you seem to identify down with.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

ummm in the 70s they were still telling people it was not bad for you. Also in the early 80s unless you were in your early 20s or older no one told you not to smoke. Lastly, keep in mind, cigarettes are 10x more addictive then heroin. So you need to change your choice of how many years, the last 20 years. I have smoked since I was 12, which makes it 30 years, and have quit recently I don't like to be lumped in with the rude smokers. I never smoked when someone was eating whether they are smokers or not, and always put distance between me and non smokers and never ever throw my cigarette butts on the ground. It is garbage. I could turn around and complain about all the non smokers that whined about coming into an area that I was smoking in and then complaining, or walking behind me and complaining that my smoke was going towards them. It is give and take. Smokers should be considerate to non smokers and the other way around.

[aGENT]

I previousy posted about the family (father, mother and son) who were smoking on board a Sunwing flight that resulted in the flight being diverted from the Dominican Republic to Bermuda.

[Wetcoaster]

This is a beautiful kernel of truth in an otherwise hostile and kvetch-filled thread. I think if everyone, smokers and non-smokers alike, would implement your kind of thinking there wouldn't be a problem anymore. Non-smokers are just as rude and do purposefully make a nuisance out of themselves by and large as much as smokers do, and to read some of the blanket statements in here made by non-smokers (including you Ossi, as much as it pains me, because you're a friend) that suggest that smokers identify well with "hookers and the homeless" or that suggest smokers shouldn't have the same rights as non-smokers.....or people who just like to bitch, quite frankly..is disheartening. it's just overkill, in my opinion, to go to that length to proclaim dislike for people who smoke.

[aGENT]

The point is non-smokers have right to make a "nuisance" of themselves since what smokers do impacts their health and at law smokers are the nuisance.

Smokers most assuredly do not have the same rights as non-smokers... as it should be since they represent a a clear and present heath hazard to non-smokers.

I do not dislike smokers - I just do not want them anywhere near me when they indulge in their habit and since they are the ones creating the health hazard, it is incumbent upon them to modify their behaviour.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

The point is non-smokers have right to make a "nuisance" of themselves since what smokers do impacts their health and at law smokers are the nuisance.

Smokers most assuredly do not have the same rights as non-smokers... as it should be since they represent a a clear and present heath hazard to non-smokers.

I do not dislike smokers - I just do not want them anywhere near me when they indulge in their habit and since they are the ones creating the health hazard, it is incumbent upon them to modify their behaviour.

[aGENT]

Well it goes both ways. I'm sure they don't want you anywhere near them when they indulge their habit either. The caveat is, if they are already smoking..ok hypothetically say I was smoking a cigarette in front of a convenience store, minding my own business, in an area where smoking is not expressly prohibited either with a sign or any other indication...and you come walking in from the other side of the building, up the sidewalk, you walk into the path where I am smoking my cigarette...if you were to ask me politely to keep the smoke from getting in your face, I'd probably oblige. However...if you want to cough sarcastically or TELL me to extinguish my cigarette or try to play doctor and tell me smoking's bad for me, then I have a problem with you, because you are intruding where your opinion has no merit. You wish to be kind to me when you ask, I'll be kind to you and do my best to keep it out of your face. You wish to be confrontational and/or purposefully snide about it? I'll reciprocate, trust me. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

[Scott Hartnell's Mane]

Pretty sure that within 10m/~33' of a doorway you'd be breaking the law. So it is actually "expressly prohibited".