Oklahoma smoking laws set to change

[BBatesokc]

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.

I already have one crazy relative whom I don't even attempt to have a discussion with because they can't remain grounded in reality. I'm not up to adopting another.

If I wanted to have bizarre unrealistic exchanges I'd venture into the 'politics' threads.

Nothing personal, it just makes my head hurt even trying to bridge the gap that is obviously between our opinions.

[Jeepnokc]

I already have one crazy relative whom I don't even attempt to have a discussion with because they can't remain grounded in reality. I'm not up to adopting another.

If I wanted to have bizarre unrealistic exchanges I'd venture into the 'politics' threads.

Nothing personal, it just makes my head hurt even trying to bridge the gap that is obviously between our opinions.

Nothing personal but compare me to a crazy relative. I'll make it simple for you. Who decides?

[Uptowner]

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.

This is off sight. The previous poster talked about purposefully working in a hazardous environment to make the most money so that they could to enjoy a life vs. having an even playingfield. You're talking about gluttony, perversion, and hedonism. Shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to earn a living without purposefully poisoning themselves?

[ljbab728]

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.

One that I'm familiar with that hasn't been listed is the TGIF on NW Expressway.
Smoking

Wsky


Non smoking

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


Patio only

Ednas ?
The Ranch
HalfTime

One that I'm familiar with that hasn't been listed is the TGIF on NW Expressway.

[Plutonic Panda]

There are plenty of other job options besides working at a cigar bar as many have pointed out. It's not like anyone is forcing you to work there. I know this has already been covered, but to say that argument is null because most people will do anything for money is invalid. Although I do kind of agree with BBates that if someone chooses to work there or smokes and gets cancer or whatever, they shouldn't be entitled to be healed at the tax payers expense. The only thing is I don't think we should just let someone die, but there has to be another approach and that doesn't include shutting down cigar bars.

I can understand to a point I suppose why banning restaurants from allowing smoking might be a good thing even if I don't agree with it, but to ban a cigar bar!? I mean come on. When you start doing stuff like that, it goes onto a slippery slope as to whether or not you're really for a free country or as free as you want it to be.

People make stupid mistakes. Starting smoking is one of those. In the end, people will have to face their mistakes. But I believe part of what makes a country free is the ability to make those mistakes as long as you're not hurting other people. That is precisely why I believe that smoking should be banned in public.

Also, for anyone saying you're hurting someone else or whatever by smoking, that is only true for the people that knowingly either work there or choose to smoke. Same thing with boxing, playing football, or some other contact sport. You can get hurt. But you know that before you go into it. I'm not trying to compare that with smoking, but the same logic applies to smokers and people who choose to patronize or work at a cigar lounge. You knowingly inhale something that has been proved to cause cancer or subject yourself to it by second hand smoke.

[Plutonic Panda]

Shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to earn a living without purposefully poisoning themselves?

They do. Give me one single instance where someone's only choice would be to subject themselves to second smoke without having a second option not to?

If you're reply is the only job they have found is working at a cigar lounge... well, if you wanted to ban them it wouldn't be available in the first place to take, yet somehow you believe to take someones option of employment and business opportunity away them by protecting them from themselves is good? I just don't follow that. So now that person doesn't have the opportunity to work in a place anywhere because the cigar doesn't exist. Yet again, I guarantee you, that person would have ultimately found a job outside of one that exposes their employees to second hand smoke. That right there, is my main point on having the gift of choice.

That is why I am for electronic signs in Edmond. That is why I am for legalized prostitution. That is why I am against requiring one to wear seatbelts. I am against and for many other things that would give people the opportunity to choose for themselves what they want and don't want to subject themselves to. Now, all of those things would still be regulated. 99% of what I want, would create new private and government jobs, add new tax dollars to the economy, and grow it none the less.

[dankrutka]

Interesting thread. While I side with strong smoking bans, there have been some good -- at least theoretical -- counterarguments.

I am interested to know how smoking affects businesses. Any studies? There are several restaurant/bars within a block or so of my place that my wife and I would undoubtedly frequent, but my wife especially refuses to ever enter a smoking establishment. Are smokers loyal enough to overcome all the lost business?

[Jeepnokc]

This is off sight. The previous poster talked about purposefully working in a hazardous environment to make the most money so that they could to enjoy a life vs. having an even playingfield. You're talking about gluttony, perversion, and hedonism. Shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to earn a living without purposefully poisoning themselves?

My response was to the comment>>>>>>

"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. "

My response was to outline the point that many people engage in risky activity (like tanning beds) that possibly causes health issues later and should all of them pay extra into the system and ultimately...who decides which activity counts and under what circumstances. Directly on point with the comment it was responding too but I agree we are getting off topic to main thread.





|

[Pete]

I am interested to know how smoking affects businesses. Any studies? There are several restaurant/bars within a block or so of my place that my wife and I would undoubtedly frequent, but my wife especially refuses to ever enter a smoking establishment. Are smokers loyal enough to overcome all the lost business?

Since states have had comprehensive bans since the early 90's there has been plenty of time to study effects and all have shown: 1) initially a slight drop; 2) things get back to normal pretty quickly and 3) in the longer term business goes up.

This is why after California led the way, almost all other states and even western countries have followed.

[Pete]

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

The Hidden Dangers of Grilling | The Oz Blog

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.

To the extent any job has been identified for harmful health risks you can be sure they are all types of regulations for those working environments. In fact, using the bodyshop example from that linked article: "Workers should protect themselves by wearing paint suits, respirators or gloves as needed. Body shop owners should ensure that their facilities are ventilated adequately to prevent the buildup of toxic fumes."

'Dangerous' jobs are the same. All those workplaces have regulations that require that employers make sure workers are properly trained for safety, have to make various equipment available, etc.

BTW, OSHA regulates air quality and that would cover the toll both worker scenario.

Violation of workplaces laws brings heavy fines and/or shutdowns and opens employers to huge lawsuits.


The only way any of these comparisons would be valid is if employees of restaurants and bars were required to wear respirators and contamination suits, which of course is not the case.

In restaurants and bars and smoking stores where smoking is not banned, you are basically throwing employees into a highly toxic environment (many, many studies have documented the hazards of second-hand smoke) without any regulation or protection whatsoever. And some are advocating that should be continued.

[stile99]

Since states have had comprehensive bans since the early 90's there has been plenty of time to study effects and all have shown: 1) initially a slight drop; 2) things get back to normal pretty quickly and 3) in the longer term business goes up.

This is why after California led the way, almost all other states and even western countries have followed.

I read that as: 1) Smokers say "What an outrage! I'll never return!". 2) A month later the smokers say "The food was good, and I want to try it again now that my senses of smell and taste have returned". 3) Six months later non-smokers say "Now that they've cleaned the place up, let's go!"

[Jersey Boss]

Did the demise of SAAB and the falling out of fashion of tweed lead to a decline in pipe smokers or did the decline in pipe smoking lead to the decline of tweed and SAAB? Pipe smokers seem to be left out of the argument these days and I am not including hookah joints in this.

[jerrywall]

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

McNellies, Henry Hudson's, Dan McGuiness, the Hilo, Drunken Fry, Nancy's, Tapworks, Captain Norm's (all outside), Cousins, Friends, and the Alley Club off the top of my head. With some thought I could probably name a few dozen more.

[Just the facts]

For the people that feel government shouldn't regulate working conditions to ensure employee safety, what is your position on coal mines, nuclear plants, and such. Should companies be allowed to subject their employees to anything they feel like and then just say if you don't like it don't work here. And for those who think smoking is legal and doesn't fall under the same scenario all I can say is smoking is only legal where it is allowed to be legal.

[Pete]

Coal mines and nuclear plants are very heavily regulated for worker safety, so I don't get your point.

[trousers]

McNellies, Henry Hudson's, Dan McGuiness, the Hilo, Drunken Fry, Nancy's, Tapworks, Captain Norm's (all outside), Cousins, Friends, and the Alley Club off the top of my head. With some thought I could probably name a few dozen more.

To add in...Store Club, Porthole, every "adult entertainment" bar...

[Bullbear]

on the gay bar side... Alibis, Partners, Phoenix Rising, Tramps, Copa, Finishline, Angles. The Boom has a smoking section which is the bar portion usually open unless there is a show, Apothocary 39 (The Park) is the only exclusively non smoking gay bar.

[Just the facts]

Coal mines and nuclear plants are very heavily regulated for worker safety, so I don't get your point.

Dang typo - it totally changed the meaning. I fixed it.

[gopokes88]

I think market forces are doing what the government wants to do but only faster.

None of the new bars that have opened have allowed smoking inside, with the obvious and understandable exception of WSKY. The retro pub doesn't allow smoking at all. Sipango went from smoking to non smoking.

If people want to smoke at a bar and the bar wants to be smoking they should be allowed too, if you are in the majority and don't want to be in a smokey bar good news every new bar opening up is going that route.

If employees worry about their health working in smoky bar, here's a suggestion, work at a non smoking bar. There's already a shortage of service workers in OKC.

[bchris02]

Despite several of the newer bars being non-smoking, most existing bars with an ABC-3 license still allow it, especially the smaller neighborhood bars. Sipango is unique in that its an older establishment that banned smoking on their own.

Most establishments that ban it, with few exceptions, are ABC-2, which by state law cannot allow it unless they have a separate ventilated area. That's why establishments like McNellie's and Tapwerks have separate bars for smokers.

[Pete]

If people want to smoke at a bar and the bar wants to be smoking they should be allowed too, if you are in the majority and don't want to be in a smokey bar good news every new bar opening up is going that route.

If employees worry about their health working in smoky bar, here's a suggestion, work at a non smoking bar. There's already a shortage of service workers in OKC.

Except we've already discussed over and over again why things aren't nearly this simple.

[Plutonic Panda]

Except we've already discussed over and over again why things aren't nearly this simple.

I just simply disagree with that then. In this case, it is that simple.

[bchris02]

Here's something else not a lot of people consider regarding the free market and smoking bans.

If I owned a bar I would have to seriously consider whether or not allowing smoking would make the most business sense. Why? Smokers many times will linger a lot longer than nonsmokers and will also order more drinks. It would be completely understandable to allow smoking, even today, as an ABC-3 establishment owner. If nonsmokers order an average of three drinks and smokers order an average of five, I would want the smokers to patronize my bar. If most ABC-3 bars are smoking, as they are now, then it doesn't make a lot of business sense to ban it as it will drive the smokers, who spend a lot of money, elsewhere. Sipango has done something very bold by banning smoking voluntarily and I hope it turns out well for them.

Once more and more ABC-3 bars start voluntarily banning smoking, the dominos will fall because at that point, those that still allow it risk losing the much larger percentage of their customer base that doesn't smoke.

[gopokes88]

Except we've already discussed over and over again why things aren't nearly this simple.

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

[gopokes88]

Despite several of the newer bars being non-smoking, most existing bars with an ABC-3 license still allow it, especially the smaller neighborhood bars. Sipango is unique in that its an older establishment that banned smoking on their own.

Most establishments that ban it, with few exceptions, are ABC-2, which by state law cannot allow it unless they have a separate ventilated area. That's why establishments like McNellie's and Tapwerks have separate bars for smokers.

That's only half the story. Sipango was the first domino, they banned smoking and profits jumped. I assure you other bars have seen that.