Smoking Laws

[onthestrip]

The city does need more places to have brew and food and watch a game without all the smoke. Would be great if we Finally got on board with no smoking in Bars like most other Cities.

Not happening soon. HB 2267 didn't make it out of a senate committee. It would have allowed cities to make stricter smoking laws in public places. With it failing, we remain with Tennessee as the only other state that disallows this. Can you say "slave to the tobacco lobby?"

[Bullbear]

Not happening soon. HB 2267 didn't make it out of a senate committee. It would have allowed cities to make stricter smoking laws in public places. With it failing, we remain with Tennessee as the only other state that disallows this. Can you say "slave to the tobacco lobby?"

Yup.. It sucks! Is a breath of fresh air when traveling and can go out and not come home stinking of smoke. One of these days perhaps.. I am holding on..lol

[PHXguyinOKC]

so you're all about taking the rights away from people just because you don't like smoke? it should be left up to the owner of the establishment to allow or not allow smoking. if they allow smoking and you don't like it, go somewhere else... freedom of choice. with all these laws banning smoking, the smokers don't have a choice and essentially have lost the right to smoke.

[BoulderSooner]

so you're all about taking the rights away from people just because you don't like smoke? it should be left up to the owner of the establishment to allow or not allow smoking. if they allow smoking and you don't like it, go somewhere else... freedom of choice. with all these laws banning smoking, the smokers don't have a choice and essentially have lost the right to smoke.

your giving workers the right to work in a non harmful environment

[onthestrip]

so you're all about taking the rights away from people just because you don't like smoke? it should be left up to the owner of the establishment to allow or not allow smoking. if they allow smoking and you don't like it, go somewhere else... freedom of choice. with all these laws banning smoking, the smokers don't have a choice and essentially have lost the right to smoke.

When you have a restaurant or bar, you become a public space, which I am free to visit as I wish. When you allow smoking in these places you are filling up the public air with harmful smoke, which is infringing on my rights. That's how I view it. Also, you are always free to go outside and smoke, you won't be losing your right to smoke.

On top of this, it's been shown that most establishments increase their business when smoking is banned.

[dankrutka]

Smoking inside a public space is not a constitutional right. People all over the country go outside to smoke. It's time to make this change.

[Rover]

Or move to the hillbilly state that allows it.

[Larry OKC]

Many places preferred not having to make the choice and alienating customers on both sides...let the State be the bad guy type of thing.

[PHXguyinOKC]

a privately owned business is not a public space. Buses, planes, airports are public spaces which i'm all for not allowing smoking except in designated areas. the state forcing a business to ban smoking is taking the rights away of people. just because you don't like smoking and want to go to a place that has smoking does not give you the right to take that right away from someone else.

[BoulderSooner]

a privately owned business is not a public space. Buses, planes, airports are public spaces which i'm all for not allowing smoking except in designated areas. the state forcing a business to ban smoking is taking the rights away of people. just because you don't like smoking and want to go to a place that has smoking does not give you the right to take that right away from someone else.

no it is protecting the rights of works

[Bullbear]

a privately owned business is not a public space. Buses, planes, airports are public spaces which i'm all for not allowing smoking except in designated areas. the state forcing a business to ban smoking is taking the rights away of people. just because you don't like smoking and want to go to a place that has smoking does not give you the right to take that right away from someone else.

Bars are still public places. Other states do just fine with restricting indoor smoking. they provide plenty of outdoor patio and dining spaces where you can Smoke your face off. Even my friends who are smokers support the non smoking in bars. They can't stand the Dense smoke filled places either. I always love how smokers are quick to say how we are taking away thier right to smoke and if we don't like it then we can stay home and not go to smoking establishments.. couldn't it just as easily be said that ALL THESE YEARS you have taken away our rights to enjoying a smoke free establishment.. and if you don't like it YOU can stay home and smoke!

[twade]

a privately owned business is not a public space. Buses, planes, airports are public spaces which i'm all for not allowing smoking except in designated areas. the state forcing a business to ban smoking is taking the rights away of people. just because you don't like smoking and want to go to a place that has smoking does not give you the right to take that right away from someone else.

A public space is a space "made available to the public." So yes, restaurants count as public spaces. Moreover, laws against smoking fall squarely within a state's traditional police powers of "protecting public peace, safety, and welfare." Federalism and rights are often misunderstood, but forbidding smoking in restaurants available to the pubic is a power that is undeniably within the power of state legislatures. If the state decides to exercise that power, the state action fills the void. If you disagree with that, you have all the right in the world to campaign against the individual lawmakers, but you have no inherent right to smoke in public.

[Stew]

I don't see how a private business owner inviting people onto his privately owned property makes that property a 'public space'. I don't smoke. I love it when a place is non-smoking. I exercise that love with *my* consumer choices and *my* wallet. I guess I've yet to achieved that sense of self entitlement where I feel justified mandating to a private property owner they must accommodate my desires and wants by rule of law. I always figured if freedom was anything it was property rights. Obviously I am mistaken.

There are really no property owners in the United States anymore. Just caretakers for the state.

[twade]

I don't see how a private business owner inviting people onto his privately owned property makes that property a 'public space'. I don't smoke. I love it when a place is non-smoking. I exercise that love with *my* consumer choices and *my* wallet. I guess I've yet to achieved that sense of self entitlement where I feel justified mandating to a private property owner they must accommodate my desires and wants by rule of law. I always figured if freedom was anything it was property rights. Obviously I am mistaken.

There are really no property owners in the United States anymore. Just caretakers for the state.

Call it "entitlement," but property rights are not, and never have been, unqualified in this country. The city can tell you how close you may build your house to the street, the state may mandate that you not use your building for a specified purpose, and tort liability may hold you legally accountable to an adjoining property owner under theories of nuisance. Hell, even the federal government may step in and tell you that you can't refuse service to certain people. In fact, the Constitution even provides for limitations of property rights in time of war - the government may force you to house soldiers in your own home. Limitations on the rights of property owners have never been unfettered in this country - even in the founding generation (since everyone suddenly seems interested in the Constitution again).

That being said, there is an undeniable strain of American individualism in this country. We believe there should be some limits to what the government may tell us about our own property. I count myself as a member of that group. I would be ticked if the city ticketed me for not mowing my yard regularly (after all it's my property), but they can. It's one of those things that I detest the most -- until my neighbor decides to turn his yard into a free-range prairie. We live in a world of qualified rights - it sucks sometimes - but it is precisely because of that limitation that we must remain involved in the process. It's fine to stand on your "rights" or "your wallet" - until you get outvoted at the ballot box on an issue that state has valid authority to wield.

Stew, I don't direct that at you personally - I dig your avatar. I think recognizing the reality of limitations only reinforces the work done by this board debating and educating others on property issues in our community. Issues, like smoking bans, are state issues, and thinking about or cussing and discussing them, serves to highlight the importance of local issues which have been somewhat lost in our nationalized political debate. [Believe me, I know you know this], but when we vote in state elections we are voting for just these very issues, not how we feel about healthcare, ect - these are issues that may not fall cleanly down party lines. That's why I love this board - we get to talk about the things that greatly matter to our day-to-day lives, but get lost in the debate on "bigger" (national) things.

That's why I think it's fruitless to discuss can the state do this; the only real question is should the state do this.

[Bellaboo]

a privately owned business is not a public space. Buses, planes, airports are public spaces which i'm all for not allowing smoking except in designated areas. the state forcing a business to ban smoking is taking the rights away of people. just because you don't like smoking and want to go to a place that has smoking does not give you the right to take that right away from someone else.

What right do you have to screw up the air that I breath ? If I have the right to be there, then I should have the right to breath clean air.....period.

[Stew]

Say you invested your life savings into building a swanky new bar of your dreams one where you as the owner proudly proclaim absolutely no smoking allowed. Now say a group of citizens is able to get a proposition passed by popular vote that would require all "public spaces" by rule of law to allow smoking. Would you just accept it as one of those states right things? Really if you think about it a law banning smoking is just as intrusive and unfair as a law mandating smoking be allowed. And let's not even go into health risks when we're talking about establishments that derive most their income from the sale of alcohol. That's just silly.

I believe firmly the free market if left alone would have resulted in smoke free restaurants and bars. I don't go to bars but I'd bet today in Oklahoma City there are bars that are smoke free and it didn't take a law for that to happen. The anti-smoking laws are just lazy. There are far more non-smokers than smokers and if non-smokers voted with their choices and wallets most places would be smoke free in a matter of months.

[twade]

Say you invested your life savings into building a swanky new bar of your dreams one where you as the owner proudly proclaim absolutely no smoking allowed. Now say a group of citizens is able to get a proposition passed by popular vote that would require all "public spaces" by rule of law to allow smoking. Would you just accept it as one of those states right things? Really if you think about it a law banning smoking is just as intrusive and unfair as a law mandating smoking be allowed. And let's not even go into health risks when we're talking about establishments that derive most their income from the sale of alcohol. That's just silly.

I believe firmly the free market if left alone would have resulted in smoke free restaurants and bars. I don't go to bars but I'd bet today in Oklahoma City there are bars that are smoke free and it didn't take a law for that to happen. The anti-smoking laws are just lazy. There are far more non-smokers than smokers and if non-smokers voted with their choices and wallets most places would be smoke free in a matter of months.

No, I wouldn't accept it, because I would argue that it falls outside the state's historic police powers. If a state is to legislate for the public health, safety, and welfare, such a law would be outside of the scope of power given to the state. In effect, you would have passed a law that would cause harm. I would file for an injunction with the court. If granted, it would prevent the law from going into place.

And actually, I don't find it silly that you would ban smoking in a place that derives most of its revenues from alcohol. The state can outlaw alcohol, but it's unlikely to do so again. One harm you voluntarily partake in; the other you don't. I think this is a better example: Should a bar be able to operate when it has active asbestos damage? The individual should be allowed to decide their own risk level; individuals who go to a bar with a friend, but don't drink, can watch the game but receive no harm from being at the establishment. I don't deny that a state could pass a law to remove both alcohol and cigarettes - both harm public health, but voters' appetite for that is likely nonexistent.

Now if smokers wanted their own place, fine. How do you do it? Negotiate around what it means to be a "public place." If that means "a place open to the public," create a mechanism that removes the establishment from the "public place." Create a membership program, make members pay a fee, and call it a private club. These tactics have been used other places.

[onthestrip]

A law banning smoking is just as intrusive as a law mandating that smoking be allowed? That's just a ridiculous comparison and you can't compare the two. And you can go into the health risks even though alcohol is sold. Alcohol isnt a factor here because if someone next to me is having a drink it doesn't affect my health. Not true with smoking.

Simply put, eating and drinking establishments are public places, and I have a right to go to a public place and not be subjected to smoke.

[Stew]

When you choose to enter a bar that allows smoking you are voluntarily putting yourself at risk of secondhand smoke, no? Nobody is forcing you to go there. You have every right in the world to refuse to enter. If you do *choose* to drink/eat at a bar that allows smoking then isn’t that choice in of itself both enabling and endorsing the bar owner’s choice to allow smoking on his property?

That’s what I don’t get. How people can feel entitled to mandate their personal choices on another person when they won’t even take responsibility for their own choices that allows the practice they want to outlaw to exist in the first place.

[twade]

When you choose to enter a bar that allows smoking you are voluntarily putting yourself at risk of secondhand smoke, no? Nobody is forcing you to go there. You have every right in the world to refuse to enter. If you do *choose* to drink/eat at a bar that allows smoking then isn’t that choice in of itself both enabling and endorsing the bar owner’s choice to allow smoking on his property?

That’s what I don’t get. How people can feel entitled to mandate their personal choices on another person when they won’t even take responsibility for their own choices that allows the practice they want to outlaw to exist in the first place.

Trust me, people's own inconsistencies never cease to amaze me.

If passed as a bill, the State legislature makes a decision call based upon (hopefully) a totality of the circumstances. Here, I think they are focused more on the siphoning of state public health dollars into the back end of the problem (hospital costs) than they are people's never-ending ability to act against their own self-interest.

I'm with you, people often act inconsistently with their own stated preferences or beliefs, but I don't think see that changing. The point is (1) the state has legitimate power to outlaw smoking; (2) if exercised, it stands on solid footing as a public health measure; and (3) it's most likely to reduce public money funneled into health costs.

[BoulderSooner]

Smoking is a workers rights issue. Just like all other unsafe work environments

[Bullbear]

When you choose to enter a bar that allows smoking you are voluntarily putting yourself at risk of secondhand smoke, no? Nobody is forcing you to go there. You have every right in the world to refuse to enter. If you do *choose* to drink/eat at a bar that allows smoking then isn’t that choice in of itself both enabling and endorsing the bar owner’s choice to allow smoking on his property?

That’s what I don’t get. How people can feel entitled to mandate their personal choices on another person when they won’t even take responsibility for their own choices that allows the practice they want to outlaw to exist in the first place.

same can be said that if smoking is not allowed in bars you have a right as a smoker not to go..you are voluntarily walking into an establishment where you know that you must smoke on the patio outdoors..

[soonerguru]

so you're all about taking the rights away from people just because you don't like smoke? it should be left up to the owner of the establishment to allow or not allow smoking. if they allow smoking and you don't like it, go somewhere else... freedom of choice. with all these laws banning smoking, the smokers don't have a choice and essentially have lost the right to smoke.

Oh dear God give it a rest. Are you standing on the corner in your tea party outfit waving a Don't Tread on Me flag? Crimony.

[PHXguyinOKC]

Oh dear God give it a rest. Are you standing on the corner in your tea party outfit waving a Don't Tread on Me flag? Crimony.

nope, im a non smoker. i just don't like the government telling me what i can and can't do in a private establishment. the decision should be left to the owner, period

[Spartan]

nope, im a non smoker. i just don't like the government telling me what i can and can't do in a private establishment. the decision should be left to the owner, period

You do realize that second hand cigarette smoke exposure is potentially lethal over time? What do you have against the government outlawing depraved and murderous public activity? It bothers me to no end when people smoke around me.

I simply don't buy your argument that this is a liberty issue.