Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Smokers..


  • Please log in to reply
501 replies to this topic

#481 Machine Gun Kelly

Machine Gun Kelly

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,506 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 11

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:58 PM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#482 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:19 PM

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.


Or...you could just move out of the way of the smoke...and go on about your business....that always works. And hmm...Drinking and Driving...no...I'm pretty sure you can't defend yourself if you're out in a car and some drunk yahoo is driving recklessly. PS how about coming up with your own idea for a sig?

Edited by Scott Hartnell's Mane, 03 February 2013 - 09:21 PM.

  • 2
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#483 McMillan

McMillan

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,978 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 07

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:54 PM

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.
  • 2

Posted Image

Thanks VC for the sig!

Demo was great, but I'm a two-way guy.


#484 allkill326

allkill326

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,270 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 12

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:09 PM

...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


Just get a gas mask, one used in the military. It's top-grade. ;)
  • 0
Posted Image

#485 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:12 PM

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.

Actually smokers rights are very limited since any involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke to a third party is an immediate health risk and at law would constitute an actionable nuisance.
  • Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). These findings have been accepted by Health Canada.
  • 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.
  • Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
  • Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
  • The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
~The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General
June 27, 2006

Edited by Wetcoaster, 03 February 2013 - 11:13 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#486 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,796 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 04 February 2013 - 04:41 PM

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.


Actually smokers rights are very limited since any involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke to a third party is an immediate health risk and at law would constitute an actionable nuisance.

  • Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). These findings have been accepted by Health Canada.
  • 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.
  • Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
  • Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
  • The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
~The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General
June 27, 2006


*Lawyered*
  • 1
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#487 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,172 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:36 PM

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




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.
  • 0

#488 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:43 PM

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.

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.vancouver.ca/bylaws/9535c.PDF
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#489 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,172 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:14 PM

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




Spit in a trash can...

However I wish that was enforced. Now granted this was in Burnaby but it's not like I haven't seen a dude urinating in the street. I suppose if it was a back alley and he was facing a wall it wouldn't be such a surprise but it was Kingsway and he didn't even bother facing away from anything. Something made me think the laws regarding such things were not a high priority for him or for a lot of other people.

I guess all the homeless people can just add that fine to the other fines they won't be paying.

BTW, not that I do it anymore, nor would I recommend anyone else take it up, but I used the stuff (and not the tea bags the loose stuff) all the time and I don't recall having any fines levied.....

Edited by ronthecivil, 04 February 2013 - 06:15 PM.

  • 0

#490 pwnstar

pwnstar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,311 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 01:04 PM

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.
  • 0

Posted Image


#491 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 05 February 2013 - 01:16 PM

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.

In BC that is illegal whether or not the windows are open. Also it is illegal to smoke in any vehicle being used as work vehicle.


Can I smoke in my vehicle?


There are two situations when smoking is not allowed in a vehicle:


1. When it’s your work vehicle: under the Tobacco Control Act, smoking is banned inside all workplaces - and if are using a work vehicle, then it is a workplace and you cannot smoke inside it even if you are the sole occupant.


2. When someone under the age of 16 is in your vehicle: it is a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act to smoke in any vehicle when youth under 16 are present.


http://www.health.go...unities.html#q6

Per the BC Motor Vehicle Act:


Smoking in motor vehicle prohibited


231.1 (1) In this section, "tobacco" means tobacco leaves or products produced from tobacco in any form or for any use.


(2) A person must not smoke tobacco, or hold lighted tobacco, in a motor vehicle that is occupied by a person under the age of 16 years, whether or not any window, sunroof, car-top, door or other feature of the vehicle is open.


(3) A person who contravenes subsection (2) commits an offence.


(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting any person or class of persons from the requirements of this section and prescribing conditions for those exemptions.


  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#492 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:16 PM

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.
http://forum.canucks...0#entry11114575

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
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#493 thehun

thehun

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,316 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 03

Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:46 AM

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.

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.
  • 2

#494 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:14 AM

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.


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.

Edited by Scott Hartnell's Mane, 06 February 2013 - 06:26 AM.

  • 1
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#495 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,796 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 06 February 2013 - 10:31 AM

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.




There goes the theory that East Coasters are all friendly and polite.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#496 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:51 PM

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.

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.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 06 February 2013 - 12:53 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#497 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,796 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:58 PM

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.


Apparently you're "whining" and/or "kvetching".
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#498 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:09 PM

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.


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.

Edited by Scott Hartnell's Mane, 06 February 2013 - 02:10 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#499 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,796 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:45 PM

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.


Pretty sure that within 10m/~33' of a doorway you'd be breaking the law. So it is actually "expressly prohibited".
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#500 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 06 February 2013 - 03:12 PM

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


Pretty sure here in NC it isn't. Gas stations all over the place here have ashcans and cigarette butt receptacles just outside the door. I'm not in BC or Canada so I could care less what the law is there. I was merely making a point via the magic of imagination. ;)
  • 2
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#501 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,796 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:47 PM

Pretty sure here in NC it isn't. Gas stations all over the place here have ashcans and cigarette butt receptacles just outside the door. I'm not in BC or Canada so I could care less what the law is there. I was merely making a point via the magic of imagination. ;)


Well we ARE in Vancouver and if you're within 10m / ~33' of a door... you no aloud smokey. I could really give zero bowel movements what you do in NC, imagination or otherwise.
  • 1
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#502 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 February 2013 - 04:22 PM

I forwarded this complaint to the management company for Metropolis at Metrotown via email:


On Sunday afternoon around 4 pm I was near the SuperStore/Chapters/Theatre entrance and there was a young mother with two young children with smokers all over the place contrary to your signage - "No Smoking on Plaza". The mother asked several smokers to move away from her children as they were blowing smoke virtually in the faces of the children. All she received was profanity laced abuse and threats.


I intervened and also received abuse and threats.


I tried to find a security guard in the area without success.


If you are not going to enforce your No Smoking rules then why bother to post them?


I received this response:


Thanks for your email and for bringing this incident to our attention. We are very truly sorry that you were treated this way by smokers breaking our policies. We are frustrated by those individuals that continuously challenge the rules and regulations of the property by smoking in prohibited areas. We have taken a number of measures to try and reduce smoking at entrances including more signage, designated smoking areas far away from the doors and increased security patrols. Enforcing the no smoking regulations is challenging but we do take it very seriously and continue to explore ways to achieve compliance. I apologize that you have to experience this when you visit our property and we will work harder at enforcing the regulations.


Thanks again for your email. I appreciate your feedback.


The key thing is to complain and keep doing so.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.