truckers, alone in their trucks, cannot smoke now in Ohio

[The Straight Story]

If it is a company owned truck, even if the company is ok with it (heard this on the radio just now, here is the only article I have found on it).

http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=56816

[mrcheerful]

1. Another reason Ohio won't be on my places to vacation

list.

[Alexander]

2. Ridiculous - and I quit smoking.

If everyone involved is cool with it, I say you have the right to fire up and wreck your lungs.

Amazing how far the nanny-state supporters will go to enforce their "morality" on everyone else.

[KT2000]

3. I am getting so sick of this

I visit a friend who lives in a nursing home. The workers - who do a job most people would not and are paid very low wages for doing the job - are forced to smoke in a field away from the building. They did put up a roof but this time of year it is freezing!

They cannot get enough workers as it is but are treated like this because of a state law. The patients were required to QUIT!
I always got a kick out of seeing some 95 year old lighting up on the patio (that is illegal now).

What kills me is that my neighbor is allowed to plaster his yard with evey yard chemical he can find. Every few days it is another chemical that is made to KILL.

[alarimer]

24. Do you want the building to explode?

Many patients in nursing homes use oxygen tanks to help them breathe. It is highly explosive as a gas and THAT'S smoking in nursing homes is a no-no. It has nothing to do with any bullshit about "smoker's rights"- just simply a fire hazard.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. Oxygen is not an explosive. It is an accelerant.

Nevertheless, your main point still stands.

[hootinholler]

40. O2 is neither an accelerant nor an explosive...

It is simply a required element for combustion aka rapid oxidation. Nothing burns without O2 and technically no solid burns it must first be converted to a gas, usually via heat. The thing about an O2 rich environment is that things that burn slowly burn suddenly, giving rise to the accelerant myth. An accelerant is something that is easily converted to a gaseous state at low temperatures, i.e. gasoline (eu: petrol), alchohol, etc.

-Hoot

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. An accelerant is ANY substance that boosts chemical reaction.

O2 at medical levels(to which my post referred) ranges from 99.30-99.994%. This is quadruple the the O2 level at sea level. It thereby acts as an accelerant. And is an accelerant, not an explosive. O2 at 21% is not an accelerant but a necessary oxidative chemical. I guess, technically, it becomes an accelerant at 22%, but one wouldn't notice an accelerative effect until a much higher concentration is achieved.

[hootinholler]

47. No, it's not an accelerant.

There's just more of it to react at higher concentrations. It is a required element of the reaction. When there's more available then more can react at the same time, things burn faster, sometimes with explosive force. The reaction is accelerated due solely to the volume of O2, not due to any property of O2.

-Hoot

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. Fire Chiefs disagree.

“Oxygen is an accelerant and it does make the fire burn hotter,” said Assistant Chief Jack Fillman of Lake County Fire Rescue. The possibility of the fire having started from a cigarette was a possibility Fillman added.
http://www.thevillagesdailysun.com/articles/2006/11/28/news/news03.txt

''Everything - rugs and all that -were supersaturated with oxygen, which acted as an accelerant,'' said Deputy Fire Chief Edmund Zyzik.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E7DD1038F932A35751C0A964948260

There's a hundred more of these quotes.


I deal directly with LOX every day. This was covered in my training and licensing. We may be bickering over a technicality, though. O2 is both an oxidant and an accelerant. That is not to say that I haven't seen differing opinions on the matter. If you care to support your argument I'd love to see it.

[KT2000]

36. NO - they had a patio

that was shielded from the weather where they could smoke.
The new state law mandates many feet from any door to the building which is in the middle of a parking lot. The next available space is in a field, which the workers use.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. My neighbor is addicted to yardwork

He is out there nearly 24/7, putting crap on his grass, with a big cigar dangling out of his mouth. One of these days that will be a federal crime.

I have considered starting a thread about idiots like him who water their lawns 12 months a year. :crazy:

[The Straight Story]

35. I know neigbors like that

The one guy rakes his yard once a week during the fall until all the leaves are fallen. Spends about 4 hours doing this and bagging them. He picks up every little twig that falls nearly daily.

I have no problem with people having pride in their yard and working hard, he just seems a little more obsessed than other people I know :)

[KT2000]

37. That is how my neighbor is

during the summer the air always smelled like lawn chemicals - weed & Feed, malathion - every few days!
He waters every night and mows every 3 days!!!

I knew these were hormone disrupting chemicals and thought to myself that his wife would end up with breast or ovarian cancer. Sure enough she was diagnosed with breast cancer in October. He is probably cooking up a prostate cancer at this moment.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. I cringe when people pour water on grass

Drives me nuts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Is this a joke?

Complaining about not being able to smoke in nursing homes?

What's next, complaining about not being about to smoke in nursery wards?

[EFerrari]

4. I think you are mistaking Ohio law for law.

Stay tuned for the Blue revolution. :party:

[madmusic]

5. When everything is against the law...

Everyone is a criminal.

Bet they practice some civil disobedience.

[cynatnite]

6. Lower in the article it could apply to owner operators...

Geez, my hubby will be pissed as hell over this and he doesn't even smoke. It's his truck and he's the only one in it. He goes to Ohio a lot on his runs. Enough truckers hate driving to that state as it is. This could do more harm than good because some might just turn down loads over this. Anywhere between 50-75% of drivers smoke from what that article says.

[hlthe2b]

7. I'm generally in favor of public smoking bans, BUT this is

RIDICULOUS..... I absolutely agree with those smokers who feel this has gone too far. :eyes:

[Fleshdancer]

8. Great! I would hate for the cig smoke to get in the way of....

all the exhaust they inhale everyday by, you know, being professional drivers and all. :eyes:

[A HERETIC I AM]

21. You know, I drove for almost 20 years and the exhaust pipe ALWAYS came into the cab.................

?!?!

"All the exhaust they inhale every day.." ?

Really? Yeah, thats how all trucks are designed. The exhaust pipe is routed from the engine compartment through the firewall and empties out right under the drivers seat.

Just like in your car, right? I mean, you drive to work breathing in your own car exhaust too, right?

What a totally uninformed and ridiculous statement.

[Fleshdancer]

34. hahaha! wow. just....wow.

My "totally uninformed and ridiculous statement" was pointing out the absurdity of society banning cigarettes for health reasons when not much enough attention is being spent on other environmental pollutants such as car exhaust. And yes everyone on the road breathes it in but truck drivers are unfortunately exposed to it far more than the average commuter.

[dysfunctional press]

9. they also say that it's a "complaint-driven system"...

so in order for the person smoking alone in his truck to get in trouble for it- he'd have to file a complaint about himself for the violation first, to get the legal process started.

[NJCher]

10. company-owned truck

Yeah, I'd just love to get a truck back from an employee that reeks of smoke.





Cher

[karash]

11. .

This law is a good law; it is merely too limited in scope and should be applied to everyone driving, not just truckers. Producing carcinogenic smoke inside one's conveyance is a dangerous activity, and medical evidence demonstrates that the smoke in question damages those who have to breathe it secondhand as well as those who make the choice to pump it into their lungs. And as anyone around driving smokers knows, smokers do not simply smoke "inside" their conveyances. Rather, they crack their windows and hang the cigarette out, so that their cancerous foulness can waft into the air filtration systems of everyone a certain distance behind them on the road, providing them with the ill benefit of secondhand smoke and secondhand lung cancer. Not to mention a wretched smell, the associated coughing, etc.

Smoking for fun is like running a coal-fired power plant for fun. If you think it doesn't affect other people nearby, you are suffering from the same "when pollution appears to disappear into the air, it vanishes for good and causes no environmental harm" delusion that anti-global-warmers have. People who choose to become addicted to poisoned leaf rolls and give themselves cancer should not have the right to also give cancer to other people, and their families and children, who happen to need to use the public highways behind them.

Protesting this law does not serve "freedom." You are not free to murder, and you should not be free to produce cancerous smoke that will drift into other people's lungs in a public place.

[Bluebear]

12. I have never noticed a trucker's smoke wafting from his 18 wheeler...

...into my sedan. Welcome to DU, but I would think the inside of a trucker's rig might be the last place we need to be making a fuss over?

[uncle ray]

17. first, it's not the truckers rig, it's the companies.

if he owns his own truck, he is free to smoke all he wants in it.

second, it's only fair to all the other smokers to have even enforcement of the law. my state recently became a no smoking state. it would be unfair to prohibit the people working on the plant floor where i work from smoking on the job while allowing the companies truck driver to smoke while on the job. that said, i don't think most of the anti smoking laws are written well. i'm of the opinion that any employer should have the option of allowing smoking in designated areas at their descretion, as long as non-smokers can avoid those designated areas. but the law is the law, it either needs to be enforced or changed.

[SoCalDem]

13. "...you should not be free to produce cancerous smoke...": AMEN

Let's all be sure to start sending letters to all the power plants, auto makers, barbeque grill manufacturers, etc :)

[Bluebear]

14. Fancy schmancy popcorn! nt

[karash]

15. .

Thank you for the welcome. I actually got this account years ago but never ended up posting anything.

"I have never noticed a trucker's smoke wafting from his 18 wheeler......into my sedan."

I frequently have smoke drift into my filtration systems from people hanging their cigarettes out the window of their cars, and while I'm sure the effect is different from a big rig, it's still spewing a cigarette's worth of smoke out into the roadway for anyone nearby to pick up. Even if people don't smell it, the substance is still drifting into the lungs of their infant in the car seat in back.

[watrwefitinfor]

18. That diesel exhaust is going to kill you

so much faster than any smoke drifting from a cigarette the driver hangs out the window. LOL. I know you just forgot to add the sarcasm smilie.

Welcome to DU.

Wat

[cynatnite]

27. Difference here is this isn't just some truck...it's where they live...

The truck is where they sleep, eat, watch TV, talk on the phone and so on. I just talked to hubby about this and in his opinion, this is no different than someone walking into your home and telling you what you can and can't do. Whether it's a company driver or an owner operator...it's their home.

[tom_paine]

16. Stupidity personified. Probably won't be enforced

[B Calm]

19. Slip seating the same truck with smokers and non smokers is

probably the reason for this new law.

[dysfunctional press]

23. the law wasn't written to affect truckers-

it's just that the way that it WAS written, it could be interpreted to include trucks.

[madokie]

20. next they will want me to quit smoking pot in my own boat or something

fuck all the better than thou assholes in the world. I quit smoking 8-14-77 went to bars and such for years afterward and still not a trace of me wanting to make anyone else stop doing anything that only harms them and I can walk away from or in this case drive.

[LisaL]

22. When OH says smoke free, I guess it really means smoke free.

[mtnester]

25. Tomorrow is the last day of smoking anywhere in Ohio, but

the enforceability of the law begins June 2007. There is a large bureaucracy that has to be created for enforcement, and it will not be up and running until then.

This law also applies to home based businesses. If you have employees (like yourself or your spouse, as long as they are paid and classified as employees) and even if they are not on the premises, during business hours you may not smoke in "the facility" (house), in an area where smoke could infiltrate into the facility (back covered porch) or in any auxiliary buildings where said employees COULD enter (pole barn garage, detached).

That said, and clarified by paid lawyer, I can, according to Ohio law, no longer smoke on my back porch or inside my garage (which is the ONLY place I smoke...outdoors WELL away from ANYONE or in the garage when it is blistering cold... no restaurants, and we do not patronize bars more than a couple times a year and it is for a drink and then gone), during "business hours" (which for a small business owner who provides a service based product like ourselves, is many times 0700 - 2000 or even 2100 hours), regardless of whether the "employee" (spouse) is on the premises or not. SO, when I get home from my full time job, no outdoor smoking for me, according to Ohio law.

Will they come after small home based businesses like ours? If they get "the list" of businesses from the SOS office, sure, they could....and will. The bureaucracy that was required by this law and voted in as PART of this law, is a behemoth, and will require SCADS of money/revenue to simply maintain itself. The only way it can survive, and it is REQUIRED by law to survive, it to dole out fines. And at $250.00 - $2500.00 per fine, they will have to issue TONS of violations. In order to issue TONS of violations, they will have to employ TONS of people statewide. In order to employ TONS of people, they will have to issue even MORE fines...to do this will require tons MORE people...endless circle endless circle endless circle.


If they show up at our door, will I let them on my property? No. Get a warrant to search for an ashtray out on the back porch. Do I have a problem with enforcement in places such as home based day car? No, you should not be smoking around other people's kids (or your own for that matter) anyway...go get them. Private business? I think it ought to be voluntary, and many places have done so....exceptions of home based day care..that is simply common sense.

Bars? Again, I think it should be voluntary. If you want to have a non-smoking bar, great! Advertise and draw a huge crowd. If you have a small Mom & Pop bar, and every one of your customers smokes, as do your employees, you should be able to maintain the status quo...non-smokers are not going there ANYWAY.

Were there a RASH of "private club with liquor license" applications applied for BEFORE election day. Yes. If you apply for one now, you are subject to the smoking regs...if you did so BEFORE, you are not.

If your primary sales are 80% or above of smoking material, you are also exempt from the new smoking laws.

On this the first full day 13 years ago that we were without Zappa, I find that I am extremely bothered by big brother's intrusion even more these days. I do not ever want to trounce on any non-smokers right not to breathe my bad and dangerous habit, however, I should have SOME safe haven somewhere, where it is warm and dry and not so far out in the parking lot that I might get mugged, as long as cigarettes are legal. Whenever they are not (which will be NEVER in my lifetime anyway, however long or short that may be unless campaign finance laws are dramatically changed), then the point is moot, and they can divert their funds to fighting the mob crime that will develop with the cigarette black market.

Do I want to ruin your meal? No. Do I want to go to someplace where EVERYONE is smoking and have a drink and a snack? Yes. Do non-smokers, if 90% of the bars and restaurants are smoke free, HAVE to patronize a place that has a big sign out front that says "This is a SMOKING establishment, enter at your own risk." No, you don't. Go next door to the 90% that that say "this is a SMOKE FREE environment." This is NOT meant to piss off non-smokers...us smokers, rightfully, have been pushed nearly underground now. We went there willingly because we know it sucks to have this habit...the majority of us are VERY careful to not infringe on anyone else's lungs..we already hide behind walls, behind trees, and go to great extremes to be careful not to inflict.

Sigh...I understand that 50% of my post will not be read at all, and I will immediately be called some ugly name because I smoke...some will only see what they want to see. I hope I made myself easily understood...perhaps I did a good job, but maybe not.

Once day I will quit, I hope. I am down to about 8-10 a day. For those of you that have quit, they are the hard ones. You know which ones they are.

Thank you for letting me try to state my thoughts on this. I sure wish the careful smokers could have been involved in writing this law...we would have done a good job for the non-smokers, and left the smokers a little bit that would not be a compromise to those who do not smoke.

[AnnInLa]

28. Your thoughts

reflect my own thoughts exactly, and are so well expressed. This post should be an Original Post, but that would just invite another free-for-all here, so I guess not. Thank you, from another smoker.

[mtnester]

32. Thanks

:)

[samplegirl]

31. Ohio has been a target for progressive ongoing

recession. I guess they think the only one that should prosper
here is Walmart. This is going to hurt many small business owners here in Ohio.
I never hear of any non-smokers worrying this much about whether or not their food served to them was touched from someone with unclean hands. Or if the food served to them
was not loaded up with MSG.
What are people thinking when they vote here in Ohio?

[porphyrian]

30. Yeah, that'll be thoroughly enforced...

:eyes:

[samplegirl]

33. Smokin in the boys room...

will take on a whole new meaning!!!

[NoBushSpokenHere]

39. No one can smoke if they use their vehicle for commercial

purposes under the new law.

Smokers can smoke in smokers patios which can only have two walls and a roof or 4 walls and NO ROOF. The patio cannot be connected to any structure with a door or window that connects to the structure of business, unless there are two doors to pass through to get into it. Gee, last time I was in a nuclear lab at a hospital there was only one door separating the nuclear medicine from those waiting to be tested... hmmmm which is worse?

[karash]

41. .

I still fail to be much emotionally moved by those who claim a need to smoke at others' expense, whether in their home or anywhere else. I am truly sorry for those who consider themselves unable to stop poisoning themselves, but I do not see why that should in any way justify them poisoning the rest of the people also.

Thinking, "This is just MY cigarette, it is an issue of freedom," is, I say again, similar to thinking, "This is just MY coal-fired power plant in my backyard, it is an issue of freedom."

If someone was chewing tobacco, injecting heroin, or just hooking themselves up to an IV cocktail of nicotine and a few thousand other miscellaneous carcinogens, I would fully support their right to do that. But the fact that the habit of smoking produces a toxic cloud that can give other people lung cancer makes it something that is not a private right.

If smokers have the freedom to enjoy a smoke at a stoplight, giving me and the infant two cars over lung cancer so that they can enjoy themselves, then by that logic Mike Tyson has the freedom at that same stoplight to practice car extraction techniques and right hooks on said smokers, giving them discomfort so that he can enjoy himself.

(Even if they consider their car their "home." Pretend Mike Tyson drives around in a portable RV gym, and wants to pull you out of your car and kick your ass to keep fresh at stoplights.)

[cynatnite]

42. So, if the government thinks someone else's personal behavior...

is bad for you, you're okay with them going into their homes and their vehicles to regulate it? That's their argument for opposing gay marriage. It's their argument against porn. They think these are bad things that will harm other people.

Now, I can understand about smoking in a car with your kids in the backseat and even in a closed environment where others are present.

But, if I'm walking outside and smoking, or in my car by myself and smoking, the government has no right to get into my car or my home and tell me I can't.

If people are going to get so worked up about somebody in another car smoking with their damn windows down, why aren't they getting pissed about the crap that's belched into the air by coal companies and whatnot? Why aren't more people getting pissed off at the shit that spews out of worn out cars, trucks and all that? I've gagged on the crap that Eastman Chemical puts out and they're clear across town.

And I read complaints about a lone person smoking in their car with their windows down. :eyes: Screwed up priorities if any cares to know.

[karash]

43. .

I see a vast difference between direct physical harm--such as that caused by secondhand smoke--and indirect emotional harm, such as that caused by the other activities you use as examples. Pretend that both porn and secondhand smoke anger me and make me morally upset. It would not be proper to regulate them for those reasons. However, porn does not cause direct physical harm, while smoking does. That is reason to regulate. Comparing it to "porn" or "gay marriage" regulation is utterly missing the original point.

[cynatnite]

44. Then let's use alcohol...

or twinkies or millions of other things that aren't good for you physically. Hell, it's to the point that if I feed my kid a twinkie I could be charged for it. That's how utterly ridiculous this notion is in trying to control other people's behavior in this way.

If they want stop people from smoking why not do more to help people to quit? Why not offer free smoking cessation classes, counseling and products? Rather than use laws that come into my home and/or my vehicle why not do this instead? Seems to me a lot more can be done with help than with punishment.

[onecent]

48. WHAT's NEXT? Twinkies, Chocolate, Oreos, Doritos?????

This is TOTAL bullshit.