Does this have something to do with this topic ?

See posts #108 and #123. Both are absurd. One was sarcastic (I suspect). Not really this topic, unless you're trying to save the defenseless from the vices of others. Public health can be stretched so far to rally your cause. If the topic is that second-hand smoke is a public health issue, both posts are tangential absurdities that demonstrate the danger of running with a precedent to further your cause. I don't favor public smoking and DO favor outlawing it ... so long as that's the last time we step on some people's toes in defense of public health.

"Yes"

Right, you've taken a public health issue all the way to extreme Communism.

Anyone who chooses to live in a metropolitan area where you can actually see the dirty air from a distance has forfeited their right to complain about damage to their lungs from other sources, IMHO.

Right, you've taken a public health issue all the way to extreme Communism.

"Slippery Slope"

When smoking is gone what will be next? Will vegans start telling everyone that eating meat hurts their feelings so eating meat in public will be banned. I say we get the ball rolling now. People that annoy me drive my blood pressure up and high blood pressure can kill me. Therefore, I should be able to catapult anyone who annoys me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKkUwiF2iUo

Hopefully this will be the year the state gets with the program and allows cities to make smoking laws. The article points out the hypocrisy of lawmakers who argue against the federal government getting in states way yet wont allow even more local cities address their health problems. And Sen Crain seems to remain as the big tobacco puppet that he was earlier in the year when he single handedly killed this bill.

Smoking bill to be health care priority in Oklahoma, health commissioner says | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/smoking-bill-to-be-health-care-priority-in-oklahoma-health-commissioner-says/article/3736857)

Oklahoma is one of the very last states to get on board with tougher anti-smoking laws. And it also has one of the highest smoking (and death from smoking) rates in the U.S.

It's a sad state of affairs when Ireland and France are way more strict than a U.S. state.

Oklahoma is one of the very last states to get on board with tougher anti-smoking laws. And it also has one of the highest smoking (and death from smoking) rates in the U.S.

It's a sad state of affairs when Ireland and France are way more strict than a U.S. state.

If I may take the "devil's advocate" position, why is there an implicit expectation that a U.S. State *should* be more strict?

I loathe smoking as much as the next guy. But what happens when the Next Big Lobby Of We Know Better Than You comes along and decides to encourage the ban of, say, cheeseburgers...because eating one every day will probably give you a heart attack, and we're at the bottom of the health polls, etc. Or eating bacon. Or whatever "pet cause du jour" happens to be in vogue.

Mind you, and let me make this clear: I loathe and detest smoking. I remember going to OU home games as a kid and being surrounded by cigarette (and other) smoke. And I have zero problem with private companies making no-smoking rules in their own facilities. That's the way it absolutely should be.

I have a really, really tough time creating a situation wherein a city has the authority to make a criminal out of an activity like smoking (or eating cheeseburgers) in the privacy of their own home.

The nanny state really, really needs to stop somewhere.

If I may take the "devil's advocate" position, why is there an implicit expectation that a U.S. State *should* be more strict?

Because historically, smoking has been a much bigger part of those cultures than it ever has been in the U.S., yet they have very comprehensive restrictions that have been implemented pretty seamlessly.


Cheeseburgers and just about anything else legally sold are not inherently unhealthy. Smoking is profoundly unhealthy, even in moderation. And there are massively expensive consequences to the whole of society, even if you don't care if someone is exercising their personal freedom to severely compromise their own health.

And nobody is talking about limiting smoking in private homes; unless it's a workplace that meets certain criteria, in which case there have been laws on the books for years.

If your cheeseburger found a way to my lungs, I'd be trying to stop you from eating those around me too.

But the argument here isn't about getting into your lungs (although some of the discussion here has been). It's about a "health and safety issue," which makes it infinitely simpler to rationalize. It's a one-off of "It's for the children... as if only child hating wife beaters could possibly oppose their moral high ground.

See, I don't mind being a burr in the saddle on this issue even though I don't smoke, because even though it isn't my personal ox being gored, someday, it might be. If we all stop fighting an issue merely because it's someone else's problem, there's no one left to fight when mine comes around.

And I honestly won't even get into the statistical tomfoolery that's long been associated with the secondhand smoke business...

And yet Oklahoma liquor laws are some of the more restrictive in the U.S.

Smoke up, but don't sell liquor at the grocery store or cold beer at the liquor store.

Because historically, smoking has been a much bigger part of those cultures than it ever has been in the U.S., yet they have very comprehensive restrictions that have been implemented pretty seamlessly.


Cheeseburgers and just about anything else legally sold are not inherently unhealthy. Smoking is profoundly unhealthy, even in moderation. And there are massively expensive consequences to the whole of society, even if you don't care if someone is exercising their personal freedom to severely compromise their own health.

And nobody is talking about limiting smoking in private homes; unless it's a workplace that meets certain criteria, in which case there have been laws on the books for years.

Oh, no? Well, that's a surprise to some folks in California, as noted this article..http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CGgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2F2012%2F03%2F29%2F a_smoking_ban_for_homes%2F&ei=lQDJUIObEsqEiwLHiYDYBA&usg=AFQjCNEM6dojb_Nu4kCWxvSMJdXRAa1x_A&bvm=bv.1355272958,d.cGE
The point is there's no threshhold at which the entities who want to impose "health and safety" on the public will stop. And that's why we have to tread very carefully on issues like this, no matter how "good" the intentions.

I agree that we should tread lightly, but what Oklahoma is talking about doing has already been implemented in most states and lots of countries.

This legislation isn't moving the line, it's just attempting to bring Oklahoma into the 1990's when it comes to smoking laws.

Oh, no? Well, that's a surprise to some folks in California, as noted this article..http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CGgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2F2012%2F03%2F29%2F a_smoking_ban_for_homes%2F&ei=lQDJUIObEsqEiwLHiYDYBA&usg=AFQjCNEM6dojb_Nu4kCWxvSMJdXRAa1x_A&bvm=bv.1355272958,d.cGE
The point is there's no threshhold at which the entities who want to impose "health and safety" on the public will stop. And that's why we have to tread very carefully on issues like this, no matter how "good" the intentions.

If it were the smoker's personal health that were being imposed upon, I would agree with you. We as innocent bystanders have our right to clean air infringed upon by smokers if there are not regulations restricting where you can smoke. As a holder of insurance and contributor to Medicaid and Medicare, that smoker's choices negatively impact me financially. As a pediatrician that smoker's decision to smoke in his own home negatively affects the health of his children, whom I am trying to keep healthy. I can't legally pee on your leg (pee is sterile and threatens no one's health), but a smoker can blow the asthma and cancer-inducing effluent from his or her lungs in my face.

I agree that we should tread lightly, but what Oklahoma is talking about doing has already been implemented in most states and lots of countries.

This legislation isn't moving the line, it's just attempting to bring Oklahoma into the 1990's when it comes to smoking laws.

Currently Oklahoma and Tennessee are the ONLY states that wont allow cities to make stricter smoking laws than the state already has. This will only allow cities accross the states to potentially make more public smoking bans than there already are.

I know Oklahomans like to stand out from the crowd of other states but when you become one of the last to do something, its safe to say we are behind the times. This will go a long way in reducing our extremely high smoking rate. So you have to get off your barstool to go smoke outside, not that big of a deal.

The point is there's no threshhold at which the entities who want to impose "health and safety" on the public will stop. And that's why we have to tread very carefully on issues like this, no matter how "good" the intentions.

Tread lighlty? This is something that 48 other states have done. This wont force you to give up your ciggs in your home, only allows cities to enact stricter public smoking bans.

If it were the smoker's personal health that were being imposed upon, I would agree with you. We as innocent bystanders have our right to clean air infringed upon by smokers if there are not regulations restricting where you can smoke. As a holder of insurance and contributor to Medicaid and Medicare, that smoker's choices negatively impact me financially. As a pediatrician that smoker's decision to smoke in his own home negatively affects the health of his children, whom I am trying to keep healthy. I can't legally pee on your leg (pee is sterile and threatens no one's health), but a smoker can blow the asthma and cancer-inducing effluent from his or her lungs in my face.

Freedom of choice. If you see a smoker near you simply move away. Besides,there's so many pollutants in the air I seriously doubt that a smoker is going to impact your health anymore than it already is. Look at all the cars/trucks/buses ect. that are pumping out much more second hand smoke and any smoker could do. We all breath this everyday. Now if you were locked up in a room full of chain smokers that would be different.

I know Oklahomans like to stand out from the crowd of other states but when you become one of the last to do something, its safe to say we are behind the times. This will go a long way in reducing our extremely high smoking rate. So you have to get off your barstool to go smoke outside, not that big of a deal.


The only way Oklahoma stands out in any health measurement is in negative; almost always falling near the very bottom in just about any statistic.

Studies have shown that smoking limitations and bans decrease smoking rates and do not negatively affect businesses.

It makes sense if you think about it... Most only consider the people already addicted and how having to go outside to smoke won't really change their habits (although it does, at least to a small degree). But more importantly, it has a profound impact on younger people not getting addicted in the first place, as many start and become habitual smokers while hanging out in bars and clubs.

Here in California, we've had very tough smoking laws for 15+ years and I can tell you that it's rare to see college-age kids smoking. Some always will, but I've noticed a big difference just in the last decade. I have a ton of younger friends and absolutely none of them smoke; they just never got started in the first place.

It's not only due to restrictions in bars but also because most schools themselves don't allow you to smoke ANYWHERE on campus.

Hard to get addicted to something when you can't ever really do it in the first place.

If your cheeseburger found a way to my lungs, I'd be trying to stop you from eating those around me too.

This^

Can't believe that anyone still chooses to smoke death sticks anyway in the 21st century..Decades after folks realized they weren't loaded with vitamins

Here is a little "food for thought" for the "pure air purists": Remember when they blew up the Bitmore Hotel? Remember the cloud of noxious dust--reminiscent of the worst of The Dust Bowl Days-- that settled over the city? How much asbestos do you suppose was in that cloud? Or how about brake linings . . . They used to contain asbestos . . . One day it occured to me that the activities of a lot of bicyclists and joggers on and by the roadways, especially in the vicinity of stop lights and stop signs (where brakes are applies, leaving their deadly residue behind), might be counter-productive, healthwise. And then there was the day--back in maybe 1977?--when I was part of a crew drinking some coffee in the garage area of an unfinished building and noticed that all of the boxes of drywall compound stacked out there for future use were stamped "Non-Asbestos". It helped me pick up on the concept that they wouldn't have been so stamped if a lot of older drywall compound contained asbestos for "fire-safety" reasons. Which is something you might want to consider or have tested the next time you do a remodeling project involving tearing out any sheetrock that was taped a bedded prior to the mid-70's . . . "Second-Hand Smoke?" That is the LEAST of your worries . . . =)

We've come a long way since smoking was banned in movie theatres by 1972, forty-plus years ago. It'd be foolish to think anything habitual/unhealthy (cheeseburgers, Little Debbies, for example) isn't subject to rule by health mob hysteria.

I remember flying to Europe in the 80's on American Airlines and they still allowed smoking!

12+ hours of everyone on that plane breathing in smoke from a bunch of different people. Amazing that that wasn't that long ago.

Wasn't it back around then that some claim the AIDS virus began to be spread by a Canadian Flight Attendant who probably smoked those nasty, choking Galouis or Disque Bleu on the plane? At least it wasn't on a return flight from Kenya/Uganda loaded up with Ebola . . . (and back then, they probably had complimentary peanuts on the plane in total disregard of future AllergySufferers)

It appears that the State's policy is do as I say and not as I do. Employees are not allowed to smoke on state property. But cities are not allowed to restrict smoking in public parks.

I remember flying to Europe in the 80's on American Airlines and they still allowed smoking!

12+ hours of everyone on that plane breathing in smoke from a bunch of different people. Amazing that that wasn't that long ago.

The US Airline smoking ban was gradually phased in starting 1979 until the final system of no smoking of any kind on any plane went into place in 2000.

Hopefully this will be the year the state gets with the program and allows cities to make smoking laws. The article points out the hypocrisy of lawmakers who argue against the federal government getting in states way yet wont allow even more local cities address their health problems. And Sen Crain seems to remain as the big tobacco puppet that he was earlier in the year when he single handedly killed this bill.

Smoking bill to be health care priority in Oklahoma, health commissioner says | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/smoking-bill-to-be-health-care-priority-in-oklahoma-health-commissioner-says/article/3736857)

Since there seems to be very little evidence that the folks "in power" who seem to be rejecting the metaphorical/allegorical "peace pipe" on the cusp of the Fiscal Cliff etc. and so forth . . . How 'bout they write a "Law" that outlaws "bars" as places where marijuana and tobacco can be smoked freely and place "pubs" as a place you might choose to be if you enjoy small portions of Mother Nature and Uncle Sam's bounty? Not "Vegas" enough?

Edited to Add: "Fer ya'"[dang]

The only way Oklahoma stands out in any health measurement is in negative; almost always falling near the very bottom in just about any statistic.

Studies have shown that smoking limitations and bans decrease smoking rates and do not negatively affect businesses.

It makes sense if you think about it... Most only consider the people already addicted and how having to go outside to smoke won't really change their habits (although it does, at least to a small degree). But more importantly, it has a profound impact on younger people not getting addicted in the first place, as many start and become habitual smokers while hanging out in bars and clubs.

Here in California, we've had very tough smoking laws for 15+ years and I can tell you that it's rare to see college-age kids smoking. Some always will, but I've noticed a big difference just in the last decade. I have a ton of younger friends and absolutely none of them smoke; they just never got started in the first place.

It's not only due to restrictions in bars but also because most schools themselves don't allow you to smoke ANYWHERE on campus.

Hard to get addicted to something when you can't ever really do it in the first place. Do you think it's due to a cultural mindset in Oklahoma? What factors play into all the negative health measurements? This only hurts Oklahoma because of high cost of health related illness that could be avoided simply by doing the rational, sound choice of not smoking. Addiction is a very hard thing to overcome, however, people do overcome it all the time. It comes down to shear "will".

to me this is a workers rights issue ... period ... right to a safe work environment ..

I remember flying to Europe in the 80's on American Airlines and they still allowed smoking!

12+ hours of everyone on that plane breathing in smoke from a bunch of different people. Amazing that that wasn't that long ago.

By the 80's, smokers were seated at the rear of the plane which was okay by me, as other smokers would pay for my cocktails and all was fun. Until someone observed that the back might be safer in crashes ... Damn smokers safer than nonsmokers? They must go!

Can the back of the plane really be safer when there is this sort of distracted flying going on up front?
E1CmSP_s6oc
Or is it only an illusion of safety?
(and I wonder what the navigator in that clip was smoking: " . . . Indoobutablees"???

The City of Guthrie now has banned cigarettes in some public places.
Tobacco, E-Cigarettes banned in Guthrie | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/tobacco-ecigarettes-banned-in-guthrie/26350630#!VaAQd)
I thought that the state government squashed this concept for OKC (and all metros). Can anybody refresh my memory on that?

I believe an entity (such as the City of Guthrie or a school district) can dictate tobacco policy on the properties they own, but a municipality cannot create over-arching anti-tobacco laws that are more stringent than those on the state level.

So, Guthrie can implement this policy only on the property it owns.

Seems this came up a bit in another thread and I came across this article about a cool campaign to get bars to voluntarily adopt anti-smoking rules. I hope it is successful.

Oklahoma campaign pushing for smoke-free bars | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahoma-campaign-pushing-for-smokefree-bars/29684462)

From a business perspective I don't see how its beneficial to allow smoking these days. That's likely why pretty much every new bar that opens up is non-smoking. Convincing older establishments to go smoke free is a little more difficult and hopefully this campaign helps.

But most "bars" are really restaurants that are required by law to remain non-smoking (or spend crazy money on a separately-ventilated area that could be rendered useless at any moment by new legislation). Grandad's is one of the few "bars" I can recall opening recently, and good on them for opening non-smoking. I think it has enabled a very loyal base for them, but I'm sure they also lose some smokers to the Blue Note.

But most "bars" are really restaurants that are required by law to remain non-smoking (or spend crazy money on a separately-ventilated area that could be rendered useless at any moment by new legislation). Grandad's is one of the few "bars" I can recall opening recently, and good on them for opening non-smoking. I think it has enabled a very loyal base for them, but I'm sure they also lose some smokers to the Blue Note.

You are right. Most "bars" in OKC are ABC-2 being that ABC-3 is relatively difficult to obtain in this state. I am guessing most ABC-3 places allow smoking? I am pretty sure the new Circus Party Bar does not.

What percentage of people who patron bars do you think are smokers?

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that most of them do, but certainly most places that do are ABC-3, if that makes any sense.

What percentage of people who patron bars do you think are smokers?

Different question....what % are smokers when they drink? Never quite understood the whole I only smoke when I drink but have many friends that never smoke but as soon as they have had a few...are bumming cigs from the smokers.

Different question....what % are smokers when they drink? Never quite understood the whole I only smoke when I drink but have many friends that never smoke but as soon as they have had a few...are bumming cigs from the smokers.

I really wish I could do that but if I have one cigarette I will be back to a pack-a-day within a week. People who only smoke when they drink have likely never been really addicted, but enjoy it when under the influence of alcohol. Nicotine and alcohol complement each other, making both buzzes more enjoyable.

From a business perspective I don't see how its beneficial to allow smoking these days. That's likely why pretty much every new bar that opens up is non-smoking. Convincing older establishments to go smoke free is a little more difficult and hopefully this campaign helps.

Is that really the case? I thought most bars that had opened recently around the metro at the very least had a smoking section or an anything goes patio area?

Is that really the case? I thought most bars that had opened recently around the metro at the very least had a smoking section or an anything goes patio area?

By non smoking he means indoors. smoking is allowed on patios at most.

From the Journal Record:

Smoking or non? Decade after law passed, restaurants say patrons’ attitudes have changed

By: Sarah Terry-Cobo The Journal Record December 15, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – Attitudes about smoking are shifting in Oklahoma, according to a nonprofit group. On Monday, Free
The Night released survey results showing more public support for smoke-free nightclubs and bars.

The group is funded by the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust, or TSET, and aims to encourage entertainment venues to voluntarily adopt smoke-free policies.

Nearly eight in 10 respondents prefer smoke-free bars and clubs, according to survey results. Only 8.4 percent of those who responded said they would not go to a bar if it didn’t allow smoking. The poll was conducted among 1,937 people at 22 events between April and September 2014 in Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

In 2005, the Legislature passed a law requiring restaurants to completely enclose smoking areas and ensure separate ventilation. David Egan, director of operations at Cattlemen’s Steakhouse, said Cattlemen’s was one of many restaurants that decided to create separate rooms. He spent about $38,000 to install separate ventilation systems, a negative air exhaust system and a dividing wall.

Yet in January, the iconic eatery took down the walls and made the entire dining area smoke-free. He said the smoking room was popular when it was created, but over time, it fell out of favor. Egan found patrons waited for tables in the nonsmoking section, even when tables were available on the smoking side.

He said he thought the survey illustrates a shift he has seen at his own business.

“Today, the whole attitude has changed: Nonsmokers demand nonsmoking areas and smokers have adjusted to wherever they eat their food,” Egan said.

Junior’s of Oklahoma City has maintained its separate areas in its bar and restaurant. Owner Jim Shumsky said he bought the historic piano bar and restaurant in 2004 and spent $200,000 the next year to retrofit his business to comply with the new law. The dining room area of the restaurant became smoke-free, and the bar remained a smoking area. Demand for a smoking area remains strong, he said.

Shumsky said he still gets a lot of customers who want to drink a cocktail or two and smoke a cigar, even though some bars may have patrons who don’t want to be in a smoky establishment. In fact, often 80 people will show up to Junior’s bar to listen to the piano players, though only a few patrons are smoking.

Even if demographics are changing, it won’t stop those who want to continue to use tobacco products, he said.

“If I didn’t have a smoking bar … they’ll just go to Remington Park or wherever they can,” Shumsky said.

Secondhand smoke is known to increase health risks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The survey showed 90 percent of respondents agreed secondhand smoke exposure is a serious health risk, and nearly 89 percent believe secondhand smoke increases nightclub and bar employees’ risk for cancer.

Egan said his employees were allowed to choose whether they worked on the smoking or nonsmoking side of the restaurant. He said he couldn’t tell if the move to go entirely smoke-free has benefited his staff.

“Is everyone a little better off?” he said. ”I’m sure. Is it measurable to us? Probably not. Everyone knows you’re better off when you’re not in a smoke-filled room.”

Survey: Oklahomans Prefer Smokefree Bars And Nightclubs - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/27632475/survey-oklahomans-prefer-smokefree-bars-and-nightclubs)

It's hard to believe in this day and age that Oklahoma not only still allows smoking in bars and restaurants (with some limitations) and worse yet, won't allow cities to set their own laws.

If that was the case, OKC and Tulsa would have no doubt already passed non-smoking laws.

Most other states and many countries have much strict laws that have been working great, some for over two decades now.

It's hard to believe in this day and age that Oklahoma not only still allows smoking in bars and restaurants (with some limitations) and worse yet, won't allow cities to set their own laws.

If that was the case, OKC and Tulsa would have no doubt already passed non-smoking laws.

It's amazing to me that Mary Fallin can get pissed off at the Federal government controlling what states can do but the state can override what the cities want to do.

The Park Bar on NW 39th street has changed hands and will become non-smoking on Jan 1st. Very much looking forward to that as it is the first in the Gay District to go non-smoking other than the Boom being smoke free on the showbar side of the house due to food service.
really wish the state would allow the City to pass a non-smoking ordinance!

Good news about the park. I love that place. Hope the smoking thing works out for them. Smoking is popular wI think the demographic. What made sense 5 or so years ago was the logic that smokers drink more and it's per seat volumes over quantity of customers. But tastes are changing.

To clarify with what I've learned in my recent process. ABC-3 doesn't restrict your food sales in any way, you can sell 100 hamburgers, only 2 beers, smoke 1000 cigarettes and be abc-3, but the age restriction applies to patrons AND employees. Only abc-2 and 1 (age restriction in bar area only) requires a 60/40(correct me if I'm wrong on the math) split so if you sell too much booze you have to rezone. I am abc-3 because I chose to be. And I was zoned for it in my spud. I'm non-smoking no-vaping by choice as well as 21&up because I chose abc-3 even though 2 was an option. Despite the fact that there's food served; it's still an adult place where we do and say adult things. That's why I branded it the pump bar. And a bit of okie history goes with it hardening back to the bottle clubs when liquor bars in OKC were clubs, store club, Wiltshire club, hi-Lo club, etc. it denotes what to expect(I hope) when you read the name.

That said, we open tomorrow. 4pm-2am weekdays 11-2am sat&sun (starting January), with brunch! First two weekends will be 4-2hours to get my people settled in before adding a third menu. Menu's by Chef Guy Romo: Bar menu 4pm-12am with Chalkboard entrees and daily deserts served 6-10 featuring new southern style cuisine. We feature 3 cocktail menus, 16 local, regional, and national draft selections on that fancy new mixed gas, glycol chilled, individually pressurized beer systems everyone is talking about. 3.2 specials. 75 beer&cider package selections. And a host of party liquors, ports, single malts, affordable yet distinguished house wine by the glass or bottle with captain's list (coming soon). Oh and my $5 beer and shot special is coming too.

That my friends, was a shameless, shameless, plug.

It's amazing to me that Mary Fallin can get pissed off at the Federal government controlling what states can do but the state can override what the cities want to do.

Because Fallin isn't the state. In fact, she's come out in support of the bills that would allow the cities to pass these bans.

It's amazing to me that Mary Fallin can get pissed off at the Federal government controlling what states can do but the state can override what the cities want to do.Yep. Marry Fallin is against 'big federal government' because they can control what she does. She loves big government though, so as long as she's in control of it.

But again, Fallin has repeatedly been on the side of letting the cities pass smoking ordinances. Her administration is pushing for it. So folks are barking up the wrong tree on this one.

But again, Fallin has repeatedly been on the side of letting the cities pass smoking ordinances. Her administration is pushing for it. So folks are barking up the wrong tree on this one.It was my understanding that the governor signed in a law passed by the legislator that barred any city from prohibiting smoking in public. Is that not the case?

It was my understanding that the governor signed in a law passed by the legislator that barred any city from prohibiting smoking in public. Is that not the case?

No and cities have long been barred from prohibiting smoking, and Fallin has been trying to change that.

Recently - Protect Local Control :: ANR (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights) (http://www.protectlocalcontrol.org/resource.php?id=11053)

And they got something passed, just not what they wanted -

Protect Local Control :: ANR (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights) (http://www.protectlocalcontrol.org/resource.php?id=11109)

You can thank David Walters, IIRC, for the most recent banning local control over smoking bill being signed.

Because Fallin isn't the state. In fact, she's come out in support of the bills that would allow the cities to pass these bans.

"Cities across Oklahoma are now prohibited from establishing mandatory minimum wage or vacation and sick-day requirements under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Mary Fallin."

Mary Fallin Signs Minimum Wage Hike Ban in Oklahoma - US News (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/15/mary-fallin-signs-minimum-wage-hike-ban-in-oklahoma)

And then the second and third paragraphs of this article:

http://www.ktul.com/story/26715617/gov-mary-fallin-responds-to-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-decision

Wow. Didn't know we were taking about anything besides smoking.... My mistake for clicking on a thread called "smoking laws".