Oklahoma smoking laws set to change

[Pete]

Except I think it is that simple.

I haven't come home from an OKC bar smelling like smoke in 2 years. I don't patronize bars that allow smoking indoors, nothing personal against those business I just don't want to smell like smoke.

As a republican with libertarian leanings, I see no need for the government to step in here. The market is doing it's job. Ask Sipango

Only simple when you want to view things in an over simplistic fashion to fit into some crazy broad political stance that doesn't require educating yourself or critical thought.


One of the biggest things is to have some impact on young people starting to smoke, starting a lifetime of addiction, then becoming a drag on our insurance and government supported healthcare programs, which we all pay for. Disproportionally, people who smoke are poorer than average and thus less likely to pay for their own health care. How does that fit into your political views?


There are still hundreds of places where people can smoke indoors in OKC and thousands throughout the state. You can name one that switched voluntarily and the only reason you know their business has gone up is because I reported it after running into the owner at a bar. So, to claim this is common knowledge in the bar industry is silly.

We can think of one that switched voluntarily; new places are generally opening as non-smoking because they know the law is going to change. They are all part of the Oklahoma Restaurant Association and that's how I knew about the forth-coming changes myself, and was the whole reason I started this thread.

Even WSKY -- with cigars as a core part of their business -- was built out a couple of years ago with the idea of converting to non-smoking because they know the laws will change, as they already have just about everywhere else.


This matter has already been researched to death and dozens of states and countries have already gone down the path we will too, just typically very late while the entire health of our state suffers.

[David]

One of the biggest things is to have some impact on young people starting to smoke, starting a lifetime of addiction, then becoming a drag on our insurance and government supported healthcare programs, which we all pay for. Disproportionally, people who smoke are poorer than average and thus less likely to pay for their own health care. How does that fit into your political views?

This was one of the things that really surprised me back in college when I waited tables (around '99 and a little after). I come from an upper-middle class background, and I was well educated in how harmful smoking is and how much it's a "not even once, and definitely not twice" sort of thing. And then I waited tables and was floored by the number of people my age who smoked, nearly every single co-worker at several different restaurants. From my perspective, I could not understand how anyone my age would be smoking when the risks have been so thoroughly documented and the public so thoroughly informed.

For related reasons, I am very happy with how the smoking laws in this state have changed. It's easy to say "don't work there if you don't want to breathe in the smoke", but there are plenty of people for whom a server job is something not to be turned down just on the dangers of secondary smoke side effects decades down the line.

[Pete]

As I have stated many times, there is no other type of job where employees are exposed to extremely hazardous conditions with zero safeguards or protection of any kind.

The government has never said, "Getting black lung in coal mines? Well, go work somewhere else and everyone just carry on."

So why do we continue to make this one absurd exception? Look no further than the monsterours and truly evil tobacco lobby.

[Pete]

Why the wealthy stopped smoking, but the poor didn’t

the rate of smoking among people making less than $24,000 a year was more than double that of those making $90,000 or more.

[baralheia]

Honestly, I have to agree with PluPan. Especially in the service industry, there is no shortage of open positions - the overwhelming majority of which are non-smoking. Really, the only thing forcing you to work at a workplace that allows smoking is you. Besides, if you're applying for work at a bar that allows smoking, there's a high likelihood that you're a smoker yourself, and you obviously know what you're about to be exposed to - much in the same way that you know if you apply to work in an auto shop, you're about to exposed to motor oil, gasoline, brake dust, etc, etc.

The only situation where I can understand this argument is where a previously non-smoking workplace decides to allow smoking. At that point, you're already committed to that job, and the only way to keep yourself from being exposed to that environment would be to change jobs. But that's not really the situation we're talking about here.

Does anyone know if there is modern, recent guidance from OSHA about the permissible exposure limits for the constituent chemicals of second-hand smoke? Someone posted a link earlier, but that article mentioned OSHA studies done 20 years ago and I'm not sure how relevant that data is today.

[Pete]

Service industry jobs are plentiful *now* and in Oklahoma City.

We are talking about long-term and statewide, and those conditions fluctuate wildly by location and macroeconomics.


Also, just because you smoke does not mean second-hand smoke isn't very bad for you.

[gopokes88]

Only simple when you want to view things in an over simplistic fashion to fit into some crazy broad political stance that doesn't require educating yourself or critical thought.


One of the biggest things is to have some impact on young people starting to smoke, starting a lifetime of addiction, then becoming a drag on our insurance and government supported healthcare programs, which we all pay for. Disproportionally, people who smoke are poorer than average and thus less likely to pay for their own health care. How does that fit into your political views?


There are still hundreds of places where people can smoke indoors in OKC and thousands throughout the state. You can name one that switched voluntarily and the only reason you know their business has gone up is because I reported it after running into the owner at a bar. So, to claim this is common knowledge in the bar industry is silly.

We can think of one that switched voluntarily; new places are generally opening as non-smoking because they know the law is going to change. They are all part of the Oklahoma Restaurant Association and that's how I knew about the forth-coming changes myself, and was the whole reason I started this thread.

Even WSKY -- with cigars as a core part of their business -- was built out a couple of years ago with the idea of converting to non-smoking because they know the laws will change, as they already have just about everywhere else.


This matter has already been researched to death and dozens of states and countries have already gone down the path we will too, just typically very late while the entire health of our state suffers.

Not everything has to be a massively complicated difficult issue to deal with.

Like smoking go to smoking bars.
Don't like smoking don't go to smoky bars.


People should have personal freedoms and suffer said consequences of said freedoms.

The argument you are making broadens way to quickly and gets way too complicated and leads to no answers or solutions whatsoever. Like saying how does the increased health care costs because of smoking fit into my political views? Yeah, sure that's easy let's talk smoking and the 1/6 of the American economy AKA the American health care system. And the health care costs of smoking are minuscule compared to the current costs and upcoming costs of the obesity epidemic.

So what are you really concerned with? health care costs? That has thousands upon thousands of problems, increased smoker costs are just a tiny piece.

It's not that I'm not educated or incapable of critical thought. It's that I fundamentally disagree on the premise. If a person wants to smoke they can. If someone wants to have his or her establishment open to smokers, they can. If someone doesn't want to work in a smoking environment they shouldn't. It all lays at the foot of personal responsibility of each individual. You are in a collective mindset, that rules and regulations on businesses (city planning, roads, etc are functions of the government and therefore regulation is needed) should try to benefit society as a whole (an oh there's millions upon millions of examples of how they've failed at this, they aren't even good at it most of the time) and therefore business owners and customers will be told what they can and can't do.

I'm not anti-government or anti-regulation. I'm anti-unnecessary business regulation, particularly in areas the free market has the power to change things quicker and more efficiently. Which it has it has been in OKC. That's enough for me. If Joe Bob wants to fry his lungs good that's fine with me, I'll go to places that don't allow smoking.

[baralheia]

Okay, that's a fair and valid point. I worked in the service industry during the height of the recession and although we were still hiring, the job market overall for the service industry was tighter than normal. I could still have gotten a job elsewhere, but I would have had to have worked much harder to get that job. In the future, that situation could be worse.

As for the smoke issue... I'm not saying that second-hand smoke isn't bad, but the first-hand smoke you're breathing in is certainly going to be worse for you. You're already comfortable with the risk that smoking presents to you, so the second-hand isn't going to be of any additional concern to a smoker. I say this as a former smoker myself.

[David]

Not everything has to be a massively complicated difficult issue to deal with.

Like smoking go to smoking bars.
Don't like smoking don't go to smoky bars.


People should have personal freedoms and suffer said consequences of said freedoms.

The argument you are making broadens way to quickly and gets way too complicated and leads to no answers or solutions whatsoever. Like saying how does the increased health care costs because of smoking fit into my political views? Yeah, sure that's easy let's talk smoking and the 1/6 of the American economy AKA the American health care system. And the health care costs of smoking are minuscule compared to the current costs and upcoming costs of the obesity epidemic.

So what are you really concerned with? health care costs? That has thousands upon thousands of problems, increased smoker costs are just a tiny piece.

It's not that I'm not educated or incapable of critical thought. It's that I fundamentally disagree on the premise. If a person wants to smoke they can. If someone wants to have his or her establishment open to smokers, they can. If someone doesn't want to work in a smoking environment they shouldn't. It all lays at the foot of personal responsibility of each individual. You are in a collective mindset, that rules and regulations on businesses (city planning, roads, etc are functions of the government and therefore regulation is needed) should try to benefit society as a whole (an oh there's millions upon millions of examples of how they've failed at this, they aren't even good at it most of the time) and therefore business owners and customers will be told what they can and can't do.

I'm not anti-government or anti-regulation. I'm anti-unnecessary business regulation, particularly in areas the free market has the power to change things quicker and more efficiently. Which it has it has been in OKC. That's enough for me. If Joe Bob wants to fry his lungs good that's fine with me, I'll go to places that don't allow smoking.

The exact same logic could be used to abolish every OSHA regulation, which is how you should know it's bad logic. Want to work in an office with a wet floor and bare electrical wires? Freedom! Want to have the office you own have the same dangers? Freedom!

[Pete]

I'm not anti-government or anti-regulation. I'm anti-unnecessary business regulation, particularly in areas the free market has the power to change things quicker and more efficiently. Which it has it has been in OKC. That's enough for me. If Joe Bob wants to fry his lungs good that's fine with me, I'll go to places that don't allow smoking.

Except as has already been discussed and proven, the only reason change is happening is due to the pending law changes. Talk to anyone involved in ORA if you don't believe me -- I've talked to their president about this very issue.

So this is where this part of your argument is completely invalid.

Without these pending changes -- which have been in the process of being negotiated for the last couple of years -- there were almost zero 'market forces' impacting this issue.


Just curious: Do you think seatblets should have never been mandated or various other car safety issues? They only happened once the government stepped in and mandated all types of things, as the auto industry fought tooth and nail. And now there is no question that society has benefited greatly from these changes, as have auto makers.

There are times where the government can affect important change that is to the benefits to citizens and businesses alike, and this is one of those issues that has already been proven again and again over decades.

We are not dealing with hypotheticals; plenty of data and history to back all this up because as usual other states and even countries are much more progressive on these issues.

There are reasons Oklahoma's smoking rate and general health indicators lag almost all other states.

[Jeepnokc]

Interesting article I found while researching whether OSHA has done any further studies (can't find any.) We are all smart enough to know that data can be manipulated to a desired outcome. There are plenty of studies on both sides that support their stance as well as plenty of article that attempt to show how the data was manipulated.

This article is interesting as it points to recent studies that 2nd hand smoke doesn't cause lung cancer. It does not speak to other health issues like asthma, etc. What is interesting is how the real motivation and the result is to change society's perception of smoking and to discourage new smokers / change societal behavior. This is where the cost savings comes. I am not saying this article is right or wrong but only that it is a different perspective.


https://reason.com/blog/2013/12/16/i...honest-convers

[mkjeeves]

It does not speak to other issues like asthma etc.

It was't about other health issues caused by second hand smoke but did go so far as to include a quote mentioning them as valid. Employers should protect employees from these kinds of problems and be forced to by OSHA when they act otherwise IMO.

Even more revealing than the study's findings are the comments from experts quoted in the article (emphasis added):

Jyoti Patel, MD, of Northwestern University School of Medicine said the findings were not new....

"Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer," said Patel. "The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm

Duh. It's bad for you and everyone around you, thus we need change

[Pete]

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

Don't need studies to tell 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.

[Tundra]

Would the tribe owned casinos, have to abide by these laws also?

[Pete]

Nope, unfortunately.

[bchris02]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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/publicat.../2102rank.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...es-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.

[Pete]

"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.

[Pete]

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.

[bchris02]

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.

[Pete]

^

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

[Pete]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

"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?

[Plutonic Panda]

^

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_stat...a/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.

[Jeepnokc]

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.