We've known cigarettes are incredibly lethal since the early 60's yet about 1 in 5 adults in the U.S. still smoke. I get the addiction thing but given what we know and the great communication and health resources available, it's outrageous smoking is still so prevalent and allowed in places like bars and restaurants.

Its difficult to understand for those who have never been addicted. Yet for those who have, there's no question as to why 1 in 5 people still smoke.

I have been battling the addiction for the past five years. I made it two full years without smoking but last summer I ended up smoking a cigar, which lead to a cigarette and then I was hooked again. It's a very powerful addiction. If it wasn't for the health risk and social stigma, I would rather just not quit. For people under 35, the social stigma tends to be the biggest factor against smoking. The health risks are acknowledged, but are generally seen as something that will have to be dealt with later in life and most people think they have plenty of time to quit before they get to the point where the health risks start to become a factor. So yes, I understand it.

I do agree though that its time for smoking to be moved outside. Most other states have done it and everybody benefits.

Common sense tells you that breathing in toxic smoke in an enclosed environment is very bad for you.

Don't need studies to you that but there are certainly plenty of them around, many from the most trusted sources in these matters.


This is one of those issues where future generations will look back and say, "What the H were they thinking back then?"

We've known cigarettes are incredibly lethal since the early 60's yet about 1 in 5 adults in the U.S. still smoke. I get the addiction thing but given what we know and the great communication and health resources available, it's outrageous smoking is still so prevalent and allowed in places like bars and restaurants.
Just out of curiosity, how come Japan has one of the highest rates of smoking in the world yet also has one of the highest average lifespans? You'll also notice that some of the countries that smoke way more than the U.S. does ranks higher in life expectancy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/10/19/who-smokes-most-a-surprising-map-of-smoking-rates-by-country/

Now I'm not going to sit here and say that those figures prove that smoking isn't bad for you because it is and is lethal, but correlation does not always imply causation, and that helps and destroys my argument at the same time.

My point is, I don't think this is bad as you are making it out to be.

This literally would not affect you or anyone else who chooses not to be affected by it in any way shape or form possible.

BTW, my grandmother was a pack a day smoker who lived to be 84. Her mother before her lived to be almost 100. Her mother never smoked, but she did and I believe she could have lived a lot longer. But I believe genetics plays a lot more into things than purely smoking.

We ban smoking on city property. We ban smoking in the public in general. We ban smoking in private establishments such as restaurants. Yet you want to go a step further and ban smoking in a cigar lounge so you can feel better about society? I just don't get it man.

People with the same social interest(cigar and cigarette smokers) can't get together unless they set up something online and meet each other, but what is different about that to you except the fact they don't have any legal employees working for them?

It surely makes a big difference to me. I have smoked about 10 cigars in the past year. Everyone of them has either been at WSKY Lounge or this other cigar lounge in Old Pasadena in California(I forget the name). Every time I've made friends, talked to people, been sociable, and flat out had a good time. But you want to take that option away because you say smoking tobacco is bad for you(and it is) and because you want to protect people against themselves who should have a right to decide what they want to do?

If you and me sat down right now and decided smoking laws for Oklahoma I'd be willing to compromise to the point where smoking in restaurants would be banned entirely(I don't even agree with that as I stated earlier) yet you want to ban cigar lounges too and not compromise at all. That just doesn't sit right with me.

"I want to smoke a cigar in a bar". Great.

But there is no way to square that with the ban in bars and restaurants. Exact same issues, your personal preferences aside.

Its difficult to understand for those who have never been addicted. Yet for those who have, there's no question as to why 1 in 5 people still smoke.

I have been battling the addiction for the past five years. I made it two full years without smoking but last summer I ended up smoking a cigar, which lead to a cigarette and then I was hooked again. It's a very powerful addiction. If it wasn't for the health risk and social stigma, I would rather just not quit. For people under 35, the social stigma tends to be the biggest factor against smoking. The health risks are acknowledged, but are generally seen as something that will have to be dealt with later in life and most people think they have plenty of time to quit before they get to the point where the health risks start to become a factor. So yes, I understand it.

I do agree though that its time for smoking to be moved outside. Most other states have done it and everybody benefits.

As I stated, I lived with a mother who tried to quit smoking many, many times and ultimately died of lung cancer at age 54. In fact, I moved back home to be her caregiver during her illness and actually witnessed her passing away. So I understand the addiction issue more than a little bit.

The part I don't understand is why you'd start and get addicted in the first place, at least in this day and age. Older people mostly got started before we knew what we now know.

So, these laws go a long way towards changing smoking from something cool and fun and to do in bars to a practice that is difficult, inconvenient and somewhat socially frowned upon.

I can't tell you how fast that happened in California when the laws first changed in the 90's At the time, I worked on studio lots and there was a very high smoking rate of people in the biz, especially actors. And a huge smoking culture in the Hollywood and downtown bars and clubs.

That changed almost immediately and then younger people generally never started smoking in the first place.

And of course, all this is completely logical... If it's not cool or convenient to light up in a bar or club or restaurant, many people never get started and thus never get addicted.

It was very interesting to see how this played out in real life and in surprisingly little time.

The part I don't understand is why you'd start and get addicted in the first place, at least in this day and age. Older people mostly got started before we knew what we now know.


When I started, it was because I enjoyed the short, intense, euphoric high you get when smoking a cigarette as a never-smoker. I started by having a cigarette in the evening, thinking that it wasn't enough to get addicted. One cigarette per day also isn't going to have a lot of health consequences, or so I thought. I was wrong, and soon that one cigarette became one in the morning and at night, then one at lunch, and within a couple of weeks, I was a full-on smoker. Nicotine is very easy to get addicted to, much easier than other substances considered addictive. It isn't like alcohol dependency, which usually happens as a result of months or years of consistent binge drinking. People who can smoke cigarettes in moderation are extremely rare.

The important thing for young people is for them to never have that first cigarette. I agree that moving it outside and stigmatizing it will help accomplish that.

^

It really does work, which is more than enough reason in itself.

BTW, just learned today that there will likely be a comprehensive ban including cigar bars that will go into effect in 2017, with 1 year grace to comply.

"I want to smoke a cigar in a bar". Great.

But there is no way to square that with the ban in bars and restaurants. Exact same issues, your personal preferences aside.Why can't you ban smoking in restaurants and the public but have an exception for a cigar bar?

^

It really does work, which is more than enough reason in itself.Wait, don't most new smokers start under 18? Also, if that is the case, banning smoking in cigar lounges won't make any impact on that since they wouldn't allow underage smokers anyways.


Nearly 9 out of 10 cigarette smokers first tried smoking by age 18, and 99% first tried smoking by age 26.2,3
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/

Anyways I'm not going to post anymore on this. I've made my stance clear and said about all I can think of to say. Bottom line is for me, what you do with your own body is your business as long as it doesn't affect others. If I were elected leader of the world tomorrow, I'd be willing to compromise banning smoking restaurants but when you walk into or choose to work at a place called a cigar lounge or bar, you clearly know what you're getting yourself into.

If Oklahoma really does a comprehensive ban on everything including cigar lounges, that will really suck because I enjoy WSKY Lounge and having the option to have an occasional cigar there is always nice. Luckily I'll be in California and there is even better cigar lounge in Pasadena, but WSKY Lounge had a really cool setting to kick back and smoke a nice cigar in. I'm not the only legal adult who enjoys it because that place is always poppin when I'm there.

BTW, just learned today that there will likely be a comprehensive ban including cigar bars that will go into effect in 2017, with 1 year grace to comply.

Cigar bar and lounge seem to be interchangeable but they really are not in the sense of what we have here. WSKY is a cigar bar. Omerta as well as the lounges at ZT and Tobacco Exchange are lounges. I belong to a cigar lounge. They do not serve alcohol or food there but patrons are allowed to bring it in. You have to have a fob to get into the lounge. I have heard about the proposed legislation and my understanding is that it will be for anywhere that serves food or alcohol which will not include the three lounges in town as they serve neither. WSKY will go non smoking and the lounges will not be affected as I understand the proposed government regulations.

In some other states, exceptions are made for cigar bars. Why couldn't that be done here to accommodate places like WSKY?

The problem with that is how do you determine what is a cigar bar? What you don't want are bars finding a loophole to allow smoking when they aren't a real cigar bar. WSKY lounge also allows cigarette smoking and pipe smoking in addition to cigar smoking. Maybe if a certain percentage of an establishment's sales come from tobacco products, smoking can be allowed?

Nonetheless, WSKY likely won't have any issues going non-smoking as it was probably taken into account from the beginning that the laws would eventually change.

WSKY will go non smoking and the lounges will not be affected as I understand the proposed government regulations.

Yes, this is my understanding as well.

Why would there be an exception for cigar bars?

Why would there be an exception for cigar bars?

There isn't. A cigar lounge doesn't serve alcohol or food. You would have to go out of your way to get into the cigar lounges in this town as they are all attached to cigar stores and most are private membership clubs where you have to gain access through fob system. I am hard pressed to see why anyone would be upset over a group of guys sitting around basically a private living room smoking a cigar watching football in a closed ventilated space.

Would it be unfair to aver that Nicotine Nazis (from either coast) are in the Top Three of MY Top Ten List of Petty Annoyances? Rhetorical Question. Of Course It would be. Hang in there Jeepster . . . A fine cigar ain't no cigarette, nor does it appeal to kids. (edited to add a "flip of the proverbial bird" to those who vape and those who disagree. =~)

Nope. But Fracking Wastewater is still OK,

You do know that your proposal is total bull[stuff] . . . Rite? =~)

Lest We Forget: JeepnOKC is also the gentleman who corrected one part of the Culturally Appropriate Architecturescape in the vicinity of Downtown. And, for that, I salute his grasp of reality beyond virtual. =~)

BTW, just learned today that there will likely be a comprehensive ban including cigar bars that will go into effect in 2017, with 1 year grace to comply.

Wait, I missed something. Wouldn't this require overturning that draconian state law from a few years ago? Is that looking possible?

Wait, I missed something. Wouldn't this require overturning that draconian state law from a few years ago? Is that looking possible?

This would be the new state law.

...I am hard pressed to see why anyone would be upset over a group of guys sitting around basically a private living room smoking a cigar watching football in a closed ventilated space.

Stick around. They will find a reason to be. Probably ostensibly to to protect store employees...who will probably also be smoking cigars. Pete?

I wouldn't get upset but believe you either go with the premise that all workplaces should be free of second-hand smoke or you don't.

Picking and choosing certain situations seems hypocritical and illogical.

However, I'm sure the law will protect such establishments... For a while. Then those will eventually go away, too.