^

That's because Oklahoma is one of the few states without comprehensive bans, and the tobacco companies want to keep it that way.

It's all very twisted. I have no doubt that in the very near future people will look back and say, "How on earth did Oklahoma not ban smoking until 201X??? What in the world was the thinking??" And no one will have any good answers.

They we're thinking if they don't want to go to a smoky bar they won't. Oklahomans were libertarian minded on some things.

This can't be overstated. We don't really need a smoking ban. The market is taking care of it. Name one bar that has opened in the past few years that allows smoking (wsky doesn't count). Fassler, RJ's, Sidecar, Packards, Slaughter house, pump, mule, oak and ore, empire, etc.
I truly can't remember the last time I came home from the bars and smelled like smoke outside of WSKY.

The only bars downtown I know of that allow smoking inside are WSKY and JJs.

They we're thinking if they don't want to go to a smoky bar they won't. Oklahomans were libertarian minded on some things.

This can't be overstated. We don't really need a smoking ban. The market is taking care of it. Name one bar that has opened in the past few years that allows smoking (wsky doesn't count). Fassler, RJ's, Sidecar, Packards, Slaughter house, pump, mule, oak and ore, empire, etc.
I truly can't remember the last time I came home from the bars and smelled like smoke outside of WSKY.

Except Oklahoma smoking rates are among the highest in the nation and that costs billions in healthcare costs.

Studies and history has shown when smoking bans go into effect smoking rates start to drop and young people in particular are far less likely to pick up the life-long horrible addiction.

This isn't theory... States and entire countries have had comprehensive bans since the early 90's with great improvements in smoking rates and the general health of the public. I've personally witnessed it here in California -- the shift in smoking rates and general attitudes about smoking has been dramatic.


This is like the debate over seatbelt laws in the 70's. Same exact "let people choose" arguments.

Except Oklahoma smoking rates are among the highest in the nation and that costs billions in healthcare costs.

Studies and history has shown when smoking bans go into effect smoking rates start to drop and young people in particular are far less likely to pick up the life-long horrible addiction.

This isn't theory... States and entire countries have had comprehensive bans since the early 90's with great improvements in smoking rates and the general health of the public. I've personally witnessed it here in California -- the shift in smoking rates and general attitudes about smoking has been dramatic.


This is like the debate over seatbelt laws in the 70's. Same exact "let people choose" arguments.

I guess I'm more libertarian minded then you are. If you want to light up go for it.
California is on the opposite extreme of smoking though. To the point its starting to be mocked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_fRQe_FgMs

I guess I'm more libertarian minded then you are. If you want to light up go for it.
California is on the opposite extreme of smoking though. To the point its starting to be mocked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_fRQe_FgMs

I'm fine with the "if you want to light up, go for it" idea as long as the smoker pays for 100% of his health care and never expects any government assistance for that care and he does it in an environment in which no one but himself can be affected (e.g., not in parks, restaurants, public buildings).

Unfortunately, that's probably impossible to achieve. Taxpayers pay a very heft price for the effects of tobacco users, not only because they are high utilizers of health care services, thus increasing costs, but also because many rely on taxpayer-funded health programs that spend billions in aggregate treating their tobacco-related diseases.

Non-smokers also suffer severe illnesses from second-hand smoke, especially the most susceptible among us: children.

They we're thinking if they don't want to go to a smoky bar they won't. Oklahomans were libertarian minded on some things.

This can't be overstated. We don't really need a smoking ban. The market is taking care of it. Name one bar that has opened in the past few years that allows smoking (wsky doesn't count). Fassler, RJ's, Sidecar, Packards, Slaughter house, pump, mule, oak and ore, empire, etc.
I truly can't remember the last time I came home from the bars and smelled like smoke outside of WSKY.

When a coworker and I visited Fassler Hall for lunch a month or two ago, we asked if we could smoke and we were told we could, as long as we were near the end of the patio (on the corner of the building closest to St Anthony). But they did not allow smoking inside the main portion of the building.

For the record, I don't smoke often, but when I do I try to take care that I'm not bothering those around me. It's my decision to smoke, but that shouldn't cause discomfort for those around me. Perhaps I'm somewhat rare in that regard.

Name one bar in okc that's opened recently that allows smoking indoors. Most allow it on the patio in open air, which doesn't really bother that much. The free market is taking care of this for us.

I consider the patio to be part of the premises.

prem·is·es
ˈpreməsəz/
noun
a house or building, together with its land and outbuildings, occupied by a business or considered in an official context.

For the record, I don't smoke often, but when I do I try to take care that I'm not bothering those around me. It's my decision to smoke, but that shouldn't cause discomfort for those around me. Perhaps I'm somewhat rare in that regard.

You're like a freaking albino leprechaun in that regard!

Any updates on this legislation? Do we know which legislator is working on this?
Can we expect this to be introduced this next session?

OKC Takes Steps To Ban Smoking At Parks - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/30589490/okc-takes-steps-to-ban-smoking-at-parks)

Uh oh...wait until the state hears about this!

Expanded smoking ban to get public hearing Dec. 8 before Oklahoma City Council | News OK (http://newsok.com/expanded-smoking-ban-to-get-public-hearing-dec.-8-before-oklahoma-city-council/article/5462544)

What's funny, is that while the state law disallowing cities to enact smoking bans has been in place since the 80's, Edmond has had a smoking ban at or near city parks/playgrounds since 2009 or so, and as far as I know it's never been challenged.

Oklahoma City bans smoking on city property | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahoma-city-bans-smoking-on-city-property/37084016)

Oklahoma City bans smoking on city property | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahoma-city-bans-smoking-on-city-property/37084016)

Good. Now to ban it on public sidewalks so I can actually enjoy dining outside.

Since everybody at all levels involved are all from the same party I don't expect there to ever be an outright challenge from one level of government to the other, but honestly I wish that would happen. The state is out of control. I'm not sure what a challenge would look like; lawyering would likely not be productive. Perhaps some form of public shaming from a political campaign. Clearly they aren't interested in working together to resolve local control. The state wants to run everything. Into the ground.

The State Law did change allowing cities to create ordinances for their own properties, hence the new ordinance. The OSCN still shows the 2010 document, however, and the State Statute was changed in late 2013. Here's the original memo to council on the ordinance:

http://www.okc.gov/councilnotes/2015/120815files/smoking%20memo.pdf

That update only applies to city property though right? The city still does not have the ability to create an ordinance banning smoking in, for example, restaurants, right? I thought the state specifically passed a law taking that power away from cities and that it was still in effect?

That's really what I would like to see change and we are heading backward.

Now wait a minute, if I decide to open up a restaurant and want to allow smoking, who are you to tell me I can't do that. Smoking is legal. As such, if you don't like it you simply have the option of not being a customer of mine.

I am against smoking completely. If it were up to me, I'd ban smoking in public, maybe with the exception of designated smoking areas. But banning smoking in a private establishment goes a little too far.

Now wait a minute, if I decide to open up a restaurant and want to allow smoking, who are you to tell me I can't do that. Smoking is legal. As such, if you don't like it you simply have the option of not being a customer of mine.

I am against smoking completely. If it were up to me, I'd ban smoking in public, maybe with the exception of designated smoking areas. But banning smoking in a private establishment goes a little too far.
That happens all over the country. It's not a new concept.

Now wait a minute, if I decide to open up a restaurant and want to allow smoking, who are you to tell me I can't do that. Smoking is legal. As such, if you don't like it you simply have the option of not being a customer of mine.

I am against smoking completely. If it were up to me, I'd ban smoking in public, maybe with the exception of designated smoking areas. But banning smoking in a private establishment goes a little too far.

Don't you live in LA now? Literally the place that pioneered this position? I have every right to tell you that you have to maintain certain health related standards when you are preparing my food and when I am in your Restaraunt consuming it. That was settled about a hundred years ago.

Also, it's good that you're outside of this state now. You'll find that nearly every major city in the country now bans smoking in places like this. Big shocker, OKC is once again bringing up the rear on this issue.

That happens all over the country. It's not a new concept.

That's fine. I still don't agree with it.

Don't you live in LA now? Literally the place that pioneered this position? I have every right to tell you that you have to maintain certain health related standards when you are preparing my food and when I am in your Restaraunt consuming it. That was settled about a hundred years ago.Yes, and California has several things I don't like about it than intrude on people's rights.

Listen, you don't have to come in my restaurant if you don't want to. If you do, you are choosing to enter my establishment knowing there are going to be smokers in there. Also, how do customers smoking affect how the food is prepared? It is prepared in a kitchen which is separated from the eating area. . . This isn't about food preparation safety, it's about whether or not I choose to allow smoking inside MY restaurant.

Also, I want to be clear, if I ever make it and get a lot money, I plan on opening up several restaurant concepts I've conjured up over the years. Not one of those will allow smoking inside.

^

This issue has already been settled in most states and western countries and the momentum is completely in one direction.

It's just that Oklahoma -- as usual -- is on the wrong side of yet another public health issue, at least for the time being.

Now wait a minute, if I decide to open up a restaurant and want to allow smoking, who are you to tell me I can't do that. Smoking is legal. As such, if you don't like it you simply have the option of not being a customer of mine.

I am against smoking completely. If it were up to me, I'd ban smoking in public, maybe with the exception of designated smoking areas. But banning smoking in a private establishment goes a little too far.

So is driving, but we don't let people drive on the sidewalk, or go 100 mph down the interstate. Many legal activities have limitations.

OKC Thunder sent out an email this morning to season ticket holders giving notice of City Ord. 25,294 and informing there will no longer be an outdoor smoking area on arena property (as of Jan. 29th game).

OKC Thunder sent out an email this morning to season ticket holders giving notice of City Ord. 25,294 and informing there will no longer be an outdoor smoking area on arena property (as of Jan. 29th game).

And they also stated per NBA rules, if you leave the arena for any reason there is no re-entry during the game.

Smoking is legal.

Except for the places where it is illegal - which now includes public property.

Is this new ordinance going to keep City employees from smoking outside the doors of City buildings (or is that already 'supposed' to be against the law)? Walking by any government building is like going into a 50's high school bathroom.

except for the places where it is illegal - which now includes public property.

Is this new ordinance going to keep city employees from smoking outside the doors of city buildings (or is that already 'supposed' to be against the law)? Walking by any government building is like going into a 50's high school bathroom.

hoo hah!!! I almost peed my pants after laughing so hard.

So is driving, but we don't let people drive on the sidewalk, or go 100 mph down the interstate. Many legal activities have limitations.
What does that have to do with smoking?

If I built private roads, I can go as fast as I want on them.

Also, I don't know if you read my post or not, but I fully support limitations on smoking. Just not in a private establishment.

I do not for the life of me understand why YOU CARE whether or not someone who owns a business wants to allow smoking in THEIR business. How hard is it to simply not go there?

Listen, I don't like cigarettes either. I know of a few restaurants and bars that allow smoking inside. You know what I do? I don't eat there. They get my business, and I don't eat their food, yet somehow, I manage to live my life every day just fine.

Except for the places where it is illegal - which now includes public property.

Is this new ordinance going to keep City employees from smoking outside the doors of City buildings (or is that already 'supposed' to be against the law)? Walking by any government building is like going into a 50's high school bathroom.What do you not understand about what I am saying? Smoking is legal period. It doesn't matter whether or not if it's legal on public property. It's still legal to smoke tobacco. Being on public property however, you're affecting other people in a space that was designated for everyone. It is paid for by the tax payers. It's a public space that everyone has the right to go to without having to worry about someone else doing something that could affect them negatively. Now, a private business is a different story. It was paid for by a citizen who should have the right to choose whether or not he or she wants to allow smoking. It's not a space for everyone. It's a space for paying customer who CHOOSE to use their service or eat there.

Are you going to use the same asinine analogy that David tried to use and say well driving isn't legal in some places, so you're theory is wrong. Because as David pointed out, you can't drive on the sidewalk, so driving is illegal in some places.

I'm tired of this issue and will never speak of it again here. But to be clear, what I am really tired of is people telling me we have no right to regulate issues of public health. In fact, we do and that has been decided ten times over.

What you think of as "private" is not a private space if you have people coming and going. You may in fact have differing zones of public and private space within your private business. It depends on what's going on there, how you use them, and who's there. Having taken some business law courses, that is the very first thing you learn. So not to be a jerk, but when you hold an opinion that is imperially incorrect that's called being wrong.

Just say you disagree with me and move on.

I'm tired of this issue and will never speak of it again here. But to be clear, what I am really tired of is people telling me we have no right to regulate issues of public health. In fact, we do and that has been decided ten times over.

What you think of as "private" is not a private space if you have people coming and going. You may in fact have differing zones of public and private space within your private business. It depends on what's going on there, how you use them, and who's there. Having taken some business law courses, that is the very first thing you learn. So not to be a jerk, but when you hold an opinion that is imperially incorrect that's called being wrong.

Just say you disagree with me and move on.
We are regulating it though. We just banned it in public spaces?

Question: do you not agree that if you were to open a restaurant it isn't private space? You're telling me that if I go into Mickey Mantels, it's a public area? So I get that there are limitations to that as you could not allow nudity inside there and stuff like that, but my point remains valid.

Smoking meth. Snorting coke. Killing people. Poisoning food. Having sex with prostitutes. Those are things that are illegal and shouldn't go on inside a privately owned restaurant because they're illegal anywhere. But again, I don't understand why you think allowing restaurants to choose for themselves to allow smoking or not is a bad thing? We have that in Oklahoma and look at the number of restaurants that allow smoking vs. the ones that don't. Has it ever affected you?

Because smoking related diseases, aside from heart disease, is the most likely reason you will die one day. That in itself makes it far more harmful than everything you just listed, all of which are regulated.

Regulating that smoking cannot occur within a particular establishment is a regulation. You can disagree all you want, but that's the honest truth from a law standpoint.

Business law says that your private business, from a legal standpoint, may not actually be private depending on circumstances. Or, it generally may be private, but contain areas within it that the law will deem as public, for which you MUST make certain accommodations for the public good. So it doesn't matter what I think, that is actually how it is.

Interesting issue on npr today. The level of pretrocarbons in dheli India are often 20x the tolerable rate for humans. Apparently there's a really nasty and very small particle that penetrates the lung tissue and buildup(sounds a bit like tobacco smoke). Doctors say children as young as 6 have irreparable lung damage. And they say the city is registering 1,400 new cars per DAY. So the problem is getting worse. The municipal govt. is putting some kind of regulation on it, I can't remember if it was a ban, a tax, or some other way to get cars off the road. But the interesting part was they immediately admitted if it became problematic or harmful to economic growth, they'd just ignore it.

I know in cities in China they are doing odd and even days for the last digit of the license plate on cars. It's getting really bad. That coupled with new coal plants that seemingly are coming online by the week... :/

Thing is, even their mass transit is overcrowded. Some people are having to wait 3-4 trains to catch one from what I've heard. I haven't been over there, but I want to go experience the culture(minus the pollution).

They're attributing it to India's colossal shift in economy. More people can afford cars so...1,400 cars a day...in one city. I've been to the south and it's beautiful. Even the small towns are crowded, it's the culture, and lack of transportation. My only experience in the mega cities was Bombay airport, the horror.

Wow. That's amazing. Aren't there cars over too that are super cheap? They're some special Indian made care and not those scooters.

Plutonic Panda - I understand what you are trying to say about having a private business, but when you open the doors to the public you lose your 'private' status. If you want to maintain the 'private' status you have to be some sort of 'members only' club. The same thing if you built a private road. Once you connect that road to a public street and allow anyone to use it you can't set a 100 mph speed limit. If you want to build an oval in your backyard and not open it to the public you can drive as fast as you want.

For example:
1AksLQzaAR8

Except for the places where it is illegal - which now includes public property.

Is this new ordinance going to keep City employees from smoking outside the doors of City buildings (or is that already 'supposed' to be against the law)? Walking by any government building is like going into a 50's high school bathroom.

At the capitol complex where it is also illegal to smoke on the grounds, you can see small groups of smokers huddled up on the 'other side of Lincoln' off state property...

Plutonic Panda - I understand what you are trying to say about having a private business, but when you open the doors to the public you lose your 'private' status. If you want to maintain the 'private' status you have to be some sort of 'members only' club. The same thing if you built a private road. Once you connect that road to a public street and allow anyone to use it you can't set a 100 mph speed limit. If you want to build an oval in your backyard and not open it to the public you can drive as fast as you want.

For example:
1AksLQzaAR8

I have no issue with a smoking ban in public places and even in restaurants BUT private businesses should have the right to cater to legal pursuits. Let's take strip clubs. Some people are offended by nudity...then don't go to Night trips. It is a private business that is open to the public but those that are smart enough to realize that they don't want to see topless women don't go there or work there. How is that any different than a cigar lounge or cigar bar? If I don't like it....I am smart enough not to go there or apply for employment there. I am not sure how you think that your right to travel into a specially purpose designated private business that may be open to the public outweighs my right to congregate with like minded friends to enjoy a cigar/pipe in an environment that is dedicated to that purpose, contains the smoke and infringes upon no one else. Like I said, I have no issue with some sort of smoking ban but I am against a 100% smoking ban that allows for no exceptions. There has to be a balance that doesn't prohibit specially designated business models.

Additionally, the market is really taking care of this problem on its own. Most bars are non smoking and you are seeing the ones left slowly changing to non smoking (Sipango being the latest)

^

It's different because nudity won't cause illness and death to the employees working there.

Bars and restaurants are workplaces and there are scores and scores of laws protecting the health of workers.

The government doesn't tell people working in unsafe and unhealthy working conditions to just go find work elsewhere.

Perhaps the answer regarding cigar bars and/or lounges might be a version of the old "Private Club" system that preceded the legality of "Liquor by the Drink"?

At the capitol complex where it is also illegal to smoke on the grounds, you can see small groups of smokers huddled up on the 'other side of Lincoln' off state property...

The thing I don't understand about all this is in more than a few cases, pushing smokers off the property actually increases second hand smoke exposure to passerby. The building I work in (not at the capitol complex) had a separate room attached to the outside of the building for smokers that had filtered ventilation separate from the rest of the building. Since state law now says you can't smoke on state property, that room can no longer be used - and my coworkers that smoke now have to walk to the edge of the property near the sidewalk to be able to smoke - exposing that smoke to anyone walking by. It just seems totally backwards to me.

At the capitol complex where it is also illegal to smoke on the grounds, you can see small groups of smokers huddled up on the 'other side of Lincoln' off state property...

THAT's where a smoker's bar of some sort would make real money, eh?

I have one co-worker that smokes behind a dumpster of the next door business since smoking is not allowed on the premises. I would think finding yourself behind a dumpster would prompt an internal discussion on quitting lol

^

Just goes to show what horrible addiction smoking becomes.


Smoking restrictions certainly encourage people to quit but more than that it discourages younger people form ever getting addicted in the first place, as it's not so cool and hip when you can't smoke in clubs and bars.

Thunder sent out an email that the smoking area will be closed down starting last night.
Glad the city passed the ordinance. Tired of paying for people's healthcare because they "have the right to smoke"

The thing I don't understand about all this is in more than a few cases, pushing smokers off the property actually increases second hand smoke exposure to passerby. The building I work in (not at the capitol complex) had a separate room attached to the outside of the building for smokers that had filtered ventilation separate from the rest of the building. Since state law now says you can't smoke on state property, that room can no longer be used - and my coworkers that smoke now have to walk to the edge of the property near the sidewalk to be able to smoke - exposing that smoke to anyone walking by. It just seems totally backwards to me.
As an ex-smoker who quit after a heart attack, I am very sensitive to smoke. I can assure you that walking by an outdoor smoking area briefly is inconsequential. I never even really notice it when I do. Just getting a very brief wiff of smoke won't cause harm to anyone.

I have one co-worker that smokes behind a dumpster of the next door business since smoking is not allowed on the premises. I would think finding yourself behind a dumpster would prompt an internal discussion on quitting lol

I have often thought the same thing. At what point does one have to re-evaluate their decision making process?

Whats interesting to me is the anti smoking ads they have been running for a while, make smokers out to be victims. Where in reality it should be the other way around. They should portray the victim as a person who has to inhale the 2nd hand smoke of a smoker.

Whats interesting to me is the anti smoking ads they have been running for a while, make smokers out to be victims. Where in reality it should be the other way around. They should portray the victim as a person who has to inhale the 2nd hand smoke of a smoker.

They were tricked by the tobacco companies, so they say.

k1YY5fZtlSM

Whats interesting to me is the anti smoking ads they have been running for a while, make smokers out to be victims. Where in reality it should be the other way around. They should portray the victim as a person who has to inhale the 2nd hand smoke of a smoker.

I've not noticed it, myself, but how do you see the ads as portraying the smoker as a victim?
If that's what's happening, you've got to keep in mind that they're not some sort of OpEd piece discussing smoking, they're advertisements targeting their audience. You don't appeal to someone to do something (quit) by assaulting them. It's not an intervention, it's an appeal.

Whats interesting to me is the anti smoking ads they have been running for a while, make smokers out to be victims. Where in reality it should be the other way around. They should portray the victim as a person who has to inhale the 2nd hand smoke of a smoker.

You gave no concept of what addiction is do you?

I've never met a smoker who did not want to quit.

The fact that so few actually kick that habit tells you all you need to know.


My parents both got hooked as teenagers. My dad tried and tried and finally was able to quit.

My mom tried many times, never could break free, and ultimately died at 54 of lung cancer.


It blows my mind that in this day and age that so many people even start smoking -- that's where the problem has to be attacked. Way, way too hard to quite and the tobacco companies have known this for decades.

Addiction is a serious illness. It's medical. Its a disease. Would folks talk about cancer patients the way they talk about smokers? Addicts of any type are more likely to have been victims of abuse or suffering from trauma (PTSD) or have inherited certain tendencies genetically.

What's worse is that so many insurance companies won't cover addiction treatment for smoking. In fact, even if you are in rehab for liquor or drugs, they can't treat your nicotine addiction as well, since the insurance companies often won't let them. Even though it's proven that treating all the addictive behaviors at once is better and that an alcoholic who rehabs but still smokes is more likely to relapse.

^

It's different because nudity won't cause illness and death to the employees working there.

Bars and restaurants are workplaces and there are scores and scores of laws protecting the health of workers.

The government doesn't tell people working in unsafe and unhealthy working conditions to just go find work elsewhere.

It really isn't different because no one is forcing them to work there. There are jobs that are hazardous to people besides working in a cigar lounge. People assume those risks upfront when taking the job there. There are plenty of jobs in the hospitality business that people that are offended by nudity or smoke don't have to work at either. I will add that it is almost a prereq to working in a cigar lounge that you smoke cigars that way you are able to discuss the different sticks and offer guidance. I will reiterate that I have no problem with a general smoking ban for mixed use places where smoking is not the primary business but there should be exceptions in the law to allow for specified business models relating to smoking to still operate with regulations. (age to get in, certain percentage of sales must be tobacco related to qualify, ventilation systems, etc).

As a person who's bartended and operated smoking bars...Heavily smoking bars. And been a smoker myself, now a quitter for over 2 years. When I smoked I held all the same sentiments. I loved smoking. If you don't want to work here around the smoke then don't work here. Everyone who worked for me smoked. Hell we smoked while we made drinks. Now. As a quitter, and owner of a non-smoking bar: I can't imagine having to work in a smoking bar as a non-smoker. It's straight up gross. As a non-smoker you simply can't survive in that environment. Which is like saying: if you don't rub feces all over your body and drink poison every 15 minutes- you'll never fit in working here. Which is unfair to workers. I'm a skilled bartender/manager/owner and with a bit of polish i'd compete with anyone around. But I would never subject myself to that condition ever again. 50 hours a week with people blowing smoke in my face? Nope! So yeah, I guess it does create an unjust work situation.

Oh...and the argument that you(the employee) assume the risk before you work is bunk. We all need to work and pay bills. But to tell people who make good money doing their jobs in a toxic environment is a cost of doing business is just wrong. We're all just trying to survive, and gigs in the smoking bars, whether you smoke or not. Are often the most lucrative. Its already a lifestyle sacrifice, losing night, weekends, and holidays. Why should it be a health sacrifice also?