Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 You know what seems pretty clear by the content of YOUR posts? That your opinion is completely irrelevant to this particular situation and YOU also need to butt out. Typical lawyer crap...no surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Or maybe you should just not break the law rather than trying to portray yourself as a victim of the police officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I know this, but like I said, some workers would have no problem working in such an environment, so if beforehand the workers were notifed that there was a risk of secondhand smoke, and they were still willing to work there, what would be the issue? There are many "unsafe" work environments that workers can choose to be employed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 That is incorrect. And if you were to "butt out" then there would be no need for a ticket, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 That is incorrect. And if you were to "butt out" then there would be no need for a ticket, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Butt out. First of all, Mr No attention to detail...it wasn't ME who "allegedly" broke the law...second of all this dick has been giving us crap since we were 14...he used to be the resource officer at our high school and got caught with a bottle of whiskey in his office. I wouldn't urinate on him if he were on fire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 No...it's correct. It's 100% correct. You have no frame of reference here, so hush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Considering it wasn't MM smoking or receiving the ticket............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Yet you are using the example of your friend to lend support to your rather odd position, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I'm done bickering with you over something you have no idea what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Workers do not get to consent to be exposed to a workplace hazard that can be abated or reduced. There are hazardous workplaces but they are subject to regulation to abate or reduce hazards as much as possible - banning smoking and reducing exposure to secondhand smoke is one such regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Support to the position that the smoking laws in this country are COMPLETELY out of hand? You're damn right I am. "Odd" is a matter of perception, second of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Seems reasonable to whatever jurisdiction that is responsible for enacting and enforcing the particular laws that you are kvetching about seems to be in line with what the US Surgeon General has found to be a serious health hazard as set out in The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006. http://www.surgeonge...moke/index.html It also seems reasonable to me and the City of Vancouver and Province of BC who have adopted the conclusions of the above-noted report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Again, I know this, I was just making reference to the fact that I find that odd that they cannot consent to such things. I'm not questioning the legality of the issue, I am more questioning the purpose behind such laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 For the last time,...I'm NOT in Vancouver or BC...so your tired, rote, nonsense has nothing at all to do with me...get that through your thick skull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Butt out. First of all, Mr No attention to detail...it wasn't ME who "allegedly" broke the law...second of all this dick has been giving us crap since we were 14...he used to be the resource officer at our high school and got caught with a bottle of whiskey in his office. I wouldn't urinate on him if he were on fire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Man you sound like a caricature of Tommy Chong in a cheech n chong movie, where he plays a caricature of a pot head. That makes you a double caricature. I normally wouldn't care to respond but you are advocating for second hand cigarette smoke. So you have some kind of Barney Fife character who seems to have alot of power and influence over your life while you are grooving and puffing the chiba eh? Sounds rough. Fight the power bro'. Righteous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Seems reasonable to whatever jurisdiction that is responsible for enacting and enforcing the particular laws that you are kvetching about seems to be in line with what the US Surgeon General has found to be a serious health hazard as set out in The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006. http://www.surgeonge...moke/index.html It also seems reasonable to me and the City of Vancouver and Province of BC who have adopted the conclusions of the above-noted report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 What I'm advocating for is fairness when it comes to dealing with these petty instances like the one my friend and I experienced. Second hand smoke is not something I advocate. I want the non-smokers to grant a little leeway when it comes to smoking cigarettes outdoors, seeing as how they've successfully removed the smoke from indoors...they cannot have it both ways...Don't want it inside, in a restaurant, in a bar...fine...but when it comes to the outdoors? They really need to stop being so snivelly about it. Middle ground would be nice on this issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Fairness??? Not with the potential for harm from secondhand smoke even from the briefest exposure. Why would any sane person risk any exposure to second hand smoke outdoors or indoors based upon the findings of the US Surgeon General in the 2006 report ~ The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Secondhand smoke is composed of sidestream smoke (the smoke released from the burning end of a cigarette) and exhaled mainstream smoke (the smoke exhaled by the smoker). Because sidestream smoke is generated at lower temperatures and under different conditions than mainstream smoke, it contains higher concentrations of many of the toxins found in inhaled cigarette smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that breathing even a little secondhand smoke poses a risk to your health. Scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Breathing even a little secondhand smoke can be harmful to your health. Secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen and contains more than 50 chemicals that can cause cancer. Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are potentially higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers. Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, interfering with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of heart attack. Secondhand smoke causes acute respiratory effects as it contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways and even brief exposure can trigger respiratory symptoms, including cough, phlegm, wheezing, and breathlessness. Brief exposure to secondhand smoke can trigger an asthma attack in children with asthma and persons who already have asthma or other respiratory conditions are at especially high risk for being affected by secondhand smoke, and should take special precautions to avoid secondhand smoke exposure. http://www.surgeonge...moke/index.html There is no "leeway" available in respect of secondhand smoke nor should there be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.