Man fined $305 for smoking in workplace – his truck

 Man fined $305 for smoking in workplace – his truck – Canada –

Ok, this is going to be another rant.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Another example of our government sticking their noses into things that are none of their damn business. Whether smoking is bad for me or not, it is none of the government’s business if I do it in an environment which is not harming anyone else (I do not smoke, by the way).

If they can give a ticket to a truck driver for smoking in his own truck with no one else around, what is next? Will they come into my house and give me a ticket because I work from home?

It is long past time to stand up to our governments and stop them from invading our privacy. It is none of the government’s business if I smoke when I am by myself. It is none of government’s business if I wear a helmet on my motorcycle, or a seatbelt in my car. I wear both helmets and seatbelts because I am a compulsive “rule follower”, but I should not have to. It is none of the governments business if I want to watch TV purchased from south of the border, without the CRTC’s interference. I should even be able to smoke a little marijuana if I so choose (I do not do that either).

Just think of all of the money our various levels of government could save if they would just stay the hell out of things which are none of their concern!


12 thoughts on “Man fined $305 for smoking in workplace – his truck

  1. If that is your rationale, then I should be able to speed drive however I want. I should even be able to slap people around if they act stupid. Welcome to the world of taliban.


    1. There is a very great difference between prohibiting behaviour with injures or endangers others people and taking away personal rights and freedoms “for my own good”. I have no problem with restrictions on smoking in public places, or around children etc. I do have a problem with being told what to do in the privacy of my own home, or my own vehicle (as long as it is not hurting anyone else. I am sorry if you cannot see the difference.

      Not to be mean, but the “Taliban” comment is absolutely moronic. A foundational principal of organizations like the Taliban is the taking away of personal rights, freedoms and choices in favour of what the church or state think you shuld do and believe. That is exactly what I am arguing AGAINST.


      1. People drink and get rowdy/drive. People smoke weed and cause trouble. How is that not endangering others lives??


      2. Again, the logic here is faulty – same as the American anti-marijuana ads that spouted the same silliness.

        Yes, people drink and drive. That does NOT making drinking bad, that makes drinking and driving bad. By the same logic you could say “people drink and drive, therefore we should ban driving”.

        Similarly, people smoke weed and driving is wrong. that does NOT make smoking weed wrong. And I am not sure I have ever seen anyone high on marijuana get rowdy – silly maybe, but not rowdy.

        Also, while I appreciate your comments, I will not continue to approve or respond to them as long as you feel the need to hide behind an anonymous identity. Anything worth saying is worth taking ownership of/responsibility for.


  2. Although I agree with the content of the original post. Giving someone a ticket for smoking cigerette in his own truck when he is sitting all by himself is a bit over the top. In an ideal world cigrettes should be totally banned for they provide no health benefit at all (and cause damage if anything).


  3. I disagree somewhat. If you don’t wear helmets or choose to “smoke” and end up requiring medical attention (for various reasons) that puts an unneccesary healthcare cost (you could argue that’s why we’re paying taxes but come on) which could have been avoided otherwise. Hence government interference. Prevention is better than cure, I’m sure I’ve heard that before.


    1. ok – then we start fining people for bad eating habits that may cause them to require medical attention? How about drinking? Oh, and lets ban tennis, and golf, and running – all of which lead to injuries requiring medical treatment. How about a fine for sitting still too much? Or too much reading causing eye strain? Where does it stop?


      1. I would agree with eating junk food part and drinking. I think there should be some control there. But you cannot ban sports as they inherently promote good health.


      2. So you would agree with the government coming into your home and telling you what can and cannot eat or drink? The next step after that is telling you what you can read? What you can watch on TV? What beliefs you are allowed to hold? All in the name of “the good of society”

        Welcome to 1984 (or the world of that really bad Stallone movie “Demolition Man”).

        The fact is, we should not have the government interfering in everything we do. We have already given away far too many fundamental rights and freedoms in the interest of “homogenizing” our society.


      3. As far as sports go, do we then let the government decide which ones are good for us? Most do provide some health benefit, but not all equally. And many involve risk – some considerable risk. So maybe golf and tennis are ok, but showboarding or surfing are not? Or maybe snowboarding is ok, but only if you do it on small hills? It is a dangerous situation when we start letting the government (or church or any other such organization) make all of our decisions for us.


Leave a Reply to Fred Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s