Oklahoma smoking laws set to change

[Pete]

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.

[jerrywall]

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.

[Jeepnokc]

^

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).

[IanMcDermid]

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.

[IanMcDermid]

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?

[Jeepnokc]

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?

You completely missed my point. I have no problem with a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. My beef is with a 100% ban that doesn't allow for cigar lounges. For example: Montana doesn't allow for any cigar lounges (whether they sale alcohol or not) at all. RI though allows for cigar lounges as long as 50% of the sales comes from tobacco product. These are specific business models. These are places that cater to a certain population and create jobs as well. What happened to Fedora? What about the current employees of the designated cigar lounges we have now that will be forced to reduce staff or close? (These employees make regular retail wages and no tips so not like they are being forced to work here by the lucrative pay. One is a police officer that can make more doing part time security work but does this because he enjoys it) There should be exceptions that allow for specific designated and regulated business models.

No one has a right to a job of their choice. Your argument would carry more weight if all the bars in OKC were smoking bars but there are plenty of non smoking bars with lucrative jobs available. Were people clamoring for jobs at Makers when it was open? No one forces anyone to work in an environment that don't like.

For the record, I don't smoke cigarettes and hate smoky bars myself but I do enjoy a good cigar occasionally shared with friends in an appropriate environment. I don't want to go into your bar and smoke a cigar but don't want you coming into my cigar lounge telling me I can't smoke my cigar. I have my place...you have yours.

[Jeepnokc]

I am curious...what bars/restaurant bars are you allowed to smoke in in OKC these days? I don't go out much anymore and when I do it is to the same places.


Smoking

Wsky


Non smoking

Sipango
Slaughter's
Cock
The Pump (according to Ian's post)


Patio only

Ednas ?
The Ranch
HalfTime

[Tundra]

OkieTonk - smoking

[Jeepnokc]

Doesn't Buffalo Wild Wings have a smoking side? Does Hooters allow smoking?

[BBatesokc]

I personally think if you want to allow smoking specific places - in light of all the knowledge of the medical conditions smoking can cause - I say "Go for it." But the employees and owners IMO should all have to waive their right go any gov't assistance should their willful neglect lead to health problems in the future resulting in medical care the gov't might otherwise have to subsidize.

But, Im' one of those nuts that thinks if you're going to willfully be obese I shouldn't have to pay for that either.

[Urbanized]

These are in addition to those already listed...

Smoking:

Blue Note
Cock o' the Walk
Cookies
Cousins
Bar at Mickey Mantle's (not dining room - separate ventilation)
JJ's
TapWerks second floor
Red Rooster

Patio smoking allowed (or even welcomed):
Powerhouse
Guyutes
The Pump (smoking portion separate from other outdoor area, though you must walk through it to use restrooms)
Captain Norm's
Skinny Slim's
R&J Lounge and Supper Club
O Bar
Louie's Midtown
Deep Duece Grill
Fassler Hall

Non-smoking:
Too many places to list. Literally hundreds in central OKC alone.

[Pete]

The current Oklahoma law is that you can allow smoking in one of these two circumstances: 1) No one under 21 is allowed; or 2) a space is completely separated with specific ventilation requirements (such as the bars at BWW on NW Ex and Mickey Mantle's) and no one under 21 is allowed.

[Pete]

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).

ALL workplaces are protected against second-hand smoke, and for good reason. Why should bars and restaurants or certain stores like cigar bars be accepted? Most states and countries still have cigar stores without allowing people to smoke in them.

And as for other hazardous jobs, they are highly, highly regulated. The whole purpose of OSHA and the strict laws they enforce is to provide a safe and healthy working environment to ALL.

This is not about customers it's about employees. And there is no other type of job (please name one) where the government simply lets employers operate a working environment with such incredibly bad impact on your health.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with being 'offended' by nudity or anything else. There are no laws saying an employer must not operate a business that offends employees. Completely different issue and not comparable at all.

[Urbanized]

Regarding Maker's (R.I.P), I am close friends with many of the former staff and in fact even dated a girl who cocktailed there (as a second job). Nearly all of them were cigar smokers or at least very knowledgeable about them, and specifically sought out work there, because the compensation was exceptional. Not only did cigars drive ticket prices (which in turn drives tips), a cigar bar attracts more affluent patrons (which also supports higher per-cover).

The servers and bartenders at Mickey Mantle's feel much the same way. That said, as more and more places become non-smoking it drives cigarette smokers into cigar-friendly establishments and ruins the environment for others, including even cigar smokers who for the most part would rather not hang out in a cloud of cigarette smoke. Double standard, I suppose.

That said, cigar smoking is a different animal. I really do think that should the law change there should be an allowance made for cigar-specific places. If I owned one, I would probably already have banned cigarettes and made them cigar-only. But then again, no way I would open a cigar-oriented place these days. Many anti-smoking advocates don't see a difference in the two things and are all too eager to throw out the baby with the bath water. I suspect cigar places are doomed, regrettably.

[Jeepnokc]

ALL workplaces are protected against second-hand smoke, and for good reason. Why should bars and restaurants or certain stores like cigar bars be accepted? Most states and countries still have cigar stores without allowing people to smoke in them.

And as for other hazardous jobs, they are highly, highly regulated. The whole purpose of OSHA and the strict laws they enforce is to provide a safe and healthy working environment to ALL.

This is not about customers it's about employees. And there is no other type of job (please name one) where the government simply lets employers operate a working environment with such incredibly bad impact on your health.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with being 'offended' by nudity or anything else. There are no laws saying an employer must not operate a business that offends employees. Completely different issue and not comparable at all.

Found one just to be a smart ass this morning:

TollBooth worker
Being a tollbooth operator is dangerous? Hell, yes. You won?t see these workers on any other list of dangerous occupations, but think about this scenario: As part of a paid experiment, you?re asked to have your breathing supply directly connected to a car?s exhaust pipe. A company wants to find out if this will increase the likelihood that you?ll get various illnesses like cancer, emphysema and respiratory problems. The test time is one week, but the company warns you: It?s a very risky experiment?you may well contract these maladies and more.

Would you voluntarily do it? We wouldn?t. So what?s the connection? Tollbooth operators are not hooked up to an exhaust pipe of a car, but what they do is pretty damn close. The majority of the air in their booth is exhaust from cars. Or worse, it?s diesel exhaust from trucks. Every time a vehicle pulls out, a trail of noxious, carcinogenic smoke is left behind. Invariably, a portion of it goes into their lungs. Can you imagine the air quality in and around those tollbooths, where their heads reside? Don?t try to. Tollbooth operators spend all day trapped in a little box, breathing in fumes from the huffing and puffing of surrounding vehicles. Given enough years of this, they?ll be huffing and puffing trying to get air into their own systems. No job?not even a traffic cop?s or gas station attendant?s workplace?is exposed to as many automotive exhaust fumes, and ultimately, as many carcinogens, as a toll-booth operator. Bottom line: This is no week-long experiment. This is your life. Sorry, Doubting Thomases?this job is dangerous.

Danger Factor: You?re sucking in carcinogens.
Pay Scale: It?s a living, no more.
Perks: None.
Profile: Regular people trying to get by.

source:Player's 25 Most Dangerous Jobs in AmericaSome jobs can kill. Over time is tough and malfunctioning office equipment is a pain. Inept coworkers slow everything down. These things wear on a person, but they won?t kill anyone.

[Pete]

Absolutely no evidence cigar second-hand smoke is less harmful than cigarettes, which is why every single smoking ban stipulates ALL smoke, such as pipes, cigarettes and cigars.

You guys want to smoke a cigar in a bar. Great. But that's not at all a good reason to allow it.

If it's at all logical to ban smoking in workplaces, it makes no sense to start adding exceptions due to personal preferences.

You could make the argument that some employees seek out places that allow smoking in all types of industries but that doesn't mean it should be allowed. OSHA doesn't let those who would rather not follow workplace health and safety laws just ignore them; strong penalties and consequences for employers who allow this.


Having said all that, the Oklahoma law is likely to except cigar stores and outdoor patios. But that's just another finger in the dike and those will all go away eventually too, as has already happened in many other places.

[Jeepnokc]

OSHA doesn't let those who would rather not follow workplace health and safety laws just ignore them; strong penalties and consequences for employers who allow this.
.

I don't believe that OSHA prohibits second hand smoke. Interesting article here:

The Case Against Smoking Bans - OSHA

Even though we disagree on cigar lounges, I still think that smoking shouldn't be allowed in bars and restaurants.

[Pete]

Just using OSHA as an example of the importance of the rights of all employees for a healthy and safe workplace.

For political reasons smoking laws are regulated generally at the state level, which is why our in Oklahoma are so completely backward.

If OSHA was allowed to deal with this issue, it would have been settled nationwide decades ago, just like the systematic elimination of other unhealthy workplace practices.

[Tundra]

Is vapor included in this?

[Urbanized]

I guess barbecue joints should be banned for putting their employees at risk too:

The Hidden Dangers of Grilling | The Oz Blog

Grilling Danger #2: Smoke
Barbecue smoke contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxic chemicals that can damage your lungs. As meat cooks, drippings of fat hit the coals and create PAHs, which waft into the air. If you are a grill chef who loves to stand over the barbeque, you are inhaling these toxins. The smoky smell on your clothes and in your hair is also coating the inside of your lungs. The more your grill smokes, the more PAH is generated. The toxins are absorbed along with that delicious smoky flavor right into your food.

Body shops should be closed too, for the sake of the people who have to work there: Health Hazards in the Auto Body Shop Industry | Chron.com

Iron workers, crab fishermen, oilfield workers, climbing guides, rafting guides, parachute instructors, police officers, medical professionals,... ...ALL of these people assume dramatically greater personal risk thanks to their choice of employment. And in general they are more highly compensated for doing so.

Workers in concert venues risk permanent hearing loss. Factory workers deal with the potential for crippling repetitive motion injury. We are not all guaranteed risk-free workplaces; only that the risks be understood, disclosed and mitigated as much as possible.

Personally, I hate most smoking places, and especially dislike cigarette smoke. But Pete, you are letting your own dislike for smoking influence your opinion about whether or not people should be allowed to partake in it. As of now it remains a legal activity. Perhaps it should be outlawed altogether, but as long as it is legal I don't have a problem with a specialized, regulated place for it.

I understand your workplace argument, but it becomes less and less valid as the market tilts overwhelmingly in favor of non-smoking. As many, many other non-smoking workplace options become available in the same industry, it becomes more and more likely that if someone works in a smoking place it is because they CHOOSE to do so.

[ctchandler]

Two of three Old Chicago bars have recently gone smoke free, but the one in Midwest City still allows smoking. It's where I plan on going to get my occasional "fix" to satisfy my smoking habit (I quit December 29th, 1999).
C. T.

[ctchandler]

I personally think if you want to allow smoking specific places - in light of all the knowledge of the medical conditions smoking can cause - I say "Go for it." But the employees and owners IMO should all have to waive their right go any gov't assistance should their willful neglect lead to health problems in the future resulting in medical care the gov't might otherwise have to subsidize.

But, Im' one of those nuts that thinks if you're going to willfully be obese I shouldn't have to pay for that either.

BBates,
Just curious, do you consider Medicare "gov't assistance"? It is after all, something we pay for and when they were taking money out of my paycheck, there were no conditions then. I do understand your concern and my company's health package (life and health insurance) were higher because I was a smoker.
C. T.
p.s. By the way, if you do consider Medicare "gov't assistance", fine, I'm not looking for an argument, just wanting to know your thoughts.

[BBatesokc]

BBates,
Just curious, do you consider Medicare "gov't assistance"? It is after all, something we pay for and when they were taking money out of my paycheck, there were no conditions then. I do understand your concern and my company's health package (life and health insurance) were higher because I was a smoker.
C. T.
p.s. By the way, if you do consider Medicare "gov't assistance", fine, I'm not looking for an argument, just wanting to know your thoughts.

No idea why you'd think I consider Medicare 'gov't assistance' (as in welfare-ish). Its an insurance program that qualifying people have paid into.

Do i think people who do not take care of themselves (smoking, obesity without underlying direct contributors, etc.) should by a higher share into the system - yes.

[ctchandler]

No idea why you'd think I consider Medicare 'gov't assistance' (as in welfare-ish). Its an insurance program that qualifying people have paid into.

Do i think people who do not take care of themselves (smoking, obesity without underlying direct contributors, etc.) should by a higher share into the system - yes.

BBates,
I just wasn't sure what you meant by government assistance. I know people that think Medicare (and Social Security) is government assistance.
C. T.

[Jeepnokc]

No idea why you'd think I consider Medicare 'gov't assistance' (as in welfare-ish). Its an insurance program that qualifying people have paid into.

Do i think people who do not take care of themselves (smoking, obesity without underlying direct contributors, etc.) should by a higher share into the system - yes.

Would this include drinkers, diabetics who continue to eat poorly, people who sky dive, people who don't wear seatbelts, people that don't wear helmets. What abut people who participate in risky sex behaviors? How would we regulate or how would we determine if their fault (didn't use condom versus condom breaking, wasn't told the other person had a std, etc) Just curious how far we take it? What year would we use to start? Do we include prior smokers like my mother who is 73 and has copd now but quit smoking years ago when we started to realize the dangers? What about people who eat a lot of grilled and smoke meats that develop cancer from the increased carcinogens? May seem kind of extreme but the point is who decides and where do we draw line? Seems like a very slippery slope.