Oklahoma smoking laws set to change

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Questor]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[Questor]

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.

[Uptowner]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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).

[Uptowner]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Just the facts]

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:

[Bellaboo]

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...

[Jeepnokc]

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:

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)

[Pete]

^

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.

[RadicalModerate]

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"?

[baralheia]

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.

[Dubya61]

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?

[Easy180]

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

[Pete]

^

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.

[OKCretro]

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"

[ljbab728]

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.

[Just the facts]

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?

[OKCretro]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[Dubya61]

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.

[jerrywall]

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?