Smoking Laws

[betts]

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.

I believe the definition of liberty includes the clause...."as long as it harms no one". Not only is second hand smoke harmful, there's new data that third hand smoke is as well, and it's especially harmful to children.

Of course I'd like people to stop spraying poisons on their lawns and fertilizing them, as that poisons my water supply and kills the beneficial insects along with the harmful ones. I've got a snowball's chance in hell on that one.

[Larry OKC]

haven't heard of it before, what is 3rd hand smoke?

[Pete]

Oklahoma has one of the highest smoking rates in the country.

Almost every other state has tougher smoking laws and there is a tremendous amount of real-life data that demonstrates after a brief adjustment period, no bars or restaurants are adversely affected.

Countries like Ireland and England -- where smokey pubs have been a way of life for centuries -- have banned smoking in all bars and restaurants and seem to be doing just fine. Even France has a similar ban.

Living in California, we have some of the toughest laws anywhere and were first to implement them way back in the 90's. You'd be amazed how quickly people adapted and how there was very little need for enforcement. There was a big campaign to educate and then everyone just changed their behavior.


I am sure that at some point I will move back to Oklahoma, at least on a part-time basis. But I can tell you I'd be much less likely to do so until they change these laws.

Once you are used to these types of bans -- and they seem to be virtually everywhere other than Oklahoma -- it's almost impossible to go back. I'm sure most people who live elsewhere would see the liberal smoking laws as a negative when considering the state.

[White Peacock]

Another reason I'm glad I switched to e-cigs.

I have always thought that it was intrusive to make laws banning smoking, largely because I used to be a Denny's rat, drinking coffee and smoking while studying or writing until the wee hours of the morning. However, factually speaking, it's not an invasion of rights to say that this can't be done in publicly shared enclosed spaces. It's not constitutionally protected, as speech is, and there's nothing that comes of being surrounded by smoke, whether you're a smoker or a nonsmoker, that is anything but detrimental.

A smoking area/patio is just fine, so long as it prevents the nonsmoking parties from having to be exposed to it. Even when I was a cigarette smoker, I didn't like bathing in a cloud of other smokers' emissions.

[Maynard]

For Penn & Teller Bull$hit fans:



(mnbsfw)

[Pete]

Out here, you wouldn't believe how strict some communities are getting. Here are some examples:

• Anywhere on state beaches and parks.
• Many cities do not allow on restaurant/bar patios.
• Some cities do not allow anywhere in public; including such places as open shopping centers.
• Santa Monica recently passed a law where you cannot even smoke on your OWN balcony or patio. (Due to the density of apartments and condos, smoke from one person's private outdoor space will always drift into another's.)

Some of these are probably too restrictive but this is the trend everywhere.

[Larry OKC]

I can see the apt thing, that is one of the reasons given for not allowing people to grill on their patio at my place, but at least 15 feet away from the building (something about fire code too)...but it is rarely enforced.

[PHXguyinOKC]

I do understand the effects of second hand smoke, but I make the choice to go into that bar and be around it. It's just as simple for someone to choose to not go into that bar because of the smoke and go some place that is smoke free. If governments keep banning things, where does it stop? That's my main concern.
Oh, and anything is potentially lethal... too much water, too much sun exposure, too much Micky D's. The mortality rate of humans is holding steady at 100%.
good debate... except for a little name calling

[Pete]

The primary reason for the smoking bans in bars and restaurants is to protect the people that work there.

Yes, it is their choice to work in that industry but the government does protect employees in virtually every field, who also have a choice. Tons and tons of restrictions about exposing employees to hazardous materials and conditions can be cited.

Our labor laws are not based on: "You don't want to be exposed to something proven to be deadly, get another job."


And of course, there are tons of people that make decent money working in these types of establishments that can't simply find something with equal pay, hours, etc.

[kevinpate]

Larry, I think that's where one's honey was in a meeting all day with smokers and you pick it up when honey comes home with smoke in her clothes hair and even her ear and flops into your lap for a big long stinky hug and some of it rubs off on ya. Could be wrong, and all in all, there are surely worse ways to have nicotine inflicted on someone.

[Skyline]

Oklahoma Lawmaker Kills Smoking Ban Bill

OKLAHOMA CITY -

A bill that would have allowed individual cities to ban indoor smoking was snuffed out in the state legislature.

But now the lawmaker who killed the measure is taking some heat.

Oklahoma City is one of 11 cities who are interested in banning smoking in all indoor buildings.

http://www.news9.com/story/17518235/...in-legislature

[Roadhawg]

I'm a cigar smoker so a ban wouldn't affect me that much but I still think it should be the business owners decision on to allow smoking or not. Not sure a beer garden type of area outside would still work under a smoking ban law.

[BoulderSooner]

I'm a cigar smoker so a ban wouldn't affect me that much but I still think it should be the business owners decision on to allow smoking or not. Not sure a beer garden type of area outside would still work under a smoking ban law.

okc had no interest in banning patio/outdoor smoking .. at least not at this time

[Pete]

I'm a cigar smoker so a ban wouldn't affect me that much but I still think it should be the business owners decision on to allow smoking or not. Not sure a beer garden type of area outside would still work under a smoking ban law.

Tons of successful ones in cities/states with very tough bans.

[ddavidson8]

Cigar smoking is under threat as well. Right now Washington is trying to come up with a bill that would outlaw walk-in humidors from businesses, mail order cigars as well as other things. It's a scary time to be a small business right now. Big Brother continues to try and control every aspect of our lives.

[SoonerDave]

I loathe smoking. Always have. Always will. As far as I'm concerned, they can take all the smoking materials on the planet and aim them for the sun. But I also know that's not going to happen.

But if someone wants to smoke in a public place, I have a really hard time rationalizing the idea that doing so should make them a criminal.

Private place? Such as a restaurant? Owner's call. These days, the market will probably push them toward not permitting it, because I remember walking into places that did allow it, hated the smell, then walked out. Lots of people did. Owner realized customers didn't want smoking there, they either banned it or moved the smoking area to a different portion of the restaurant.

There *has* to be a point at which freedom still means your free to do something. If someone wants to light up a cigarette in a park, do we have nothing better to do than to translate him into a criminal? And if public places represent the next migration of the line between public policy and private behavior and the degree to which government can intrude on the other, then when will it become the purview of government to intrude into private homes and ban smoking there, as well? Are we going to, say, start arresting people for cooking hamburgers in their homes because someone trotted out a study that declared hamburgers were "bad" for you?

Sure, that example seems absurd (although, I suspect, not to some in this thread). But thirty years ago, the notion of making a criminal out of someone walking down the street and smoking a cigarette was asinine, too, but here we are, debating essentially that *very* topic.

Government control of our lives has to stop somewhere. Eventually, for any given issue, someone can invariably come up with a really, really good reason to ban someone from doing practically anything, and it doesn't bother you because it isn't your thing, and you've wrapped yourself in a cloak of piety that only grandiose self-righteousness can convey. But remember, too, that every day that line gets pushed a little further out, the chances that your personal ox gets gored increase exponentially. There has to be a day when we say that the conceptual notion of freedom trumps someone else's "really, really, really, good reason" to ban something.

I understand and agree that smoking is bad for you. My uncle smoked like a chimney for years, and ended up having a heart attack, and later, a stroke (although smoking was but one ingredient in that result). I understand studies about second-hand smoke. I understand worker protection (and the notion Pete cited is, in my view, not that far away from the concept that everyone is entitled to a job, but that's another discussion). But there comes a point when governments have to realize there is a cap to their ability to control and dominate under the guise of "protecting" you, even from "yourself."

Realize that's not a popular POV, but its an honest one. Maybe its just a little shred of libertarian in me emerging

[onthestrip]

Private place? Such as a restaurant? Owner's call. These days, the market will probably push them toward not permitting it, because I remember walking into places that did allow it, hated the smell, then walked out. Lots of people did. Owner realized customers didn't want smoking there, they either banned it or moved the smoking area to a different portion of the restaurant.

A restaurant is not a private place, it is very much a public space. Unless you are a club, where members pay to be a apart of it (ie country club), then restaurants and bars are public places. Therefore, imo you shouldnt be able to toxify the public air space by smoking. Us and good ol Tennessee are the only 2 states that dont agree.

And it has been shown that business increases at places that go non smoking.

[SoonerDave]

A restaurant is not a private place, it is very much a public space. Unless you are a club, where members pay to be a apart of it (ie country club), then restaurants and bars are public places. Therefore, imo you shouldnt be able to toxify the public air space by smoking. Us and good ol Tennessee are the only 2 states that dont agree.

And it has been shown that business increases at places that go non smoking.

And we disagree quite stridently on that point. External studies may show his business will increase, but the fact that someone else "knows better" about his business shouldn't trump the ability for him to make a decision even if a third party doesn't think its in his own best interest.

[Bellaboo]

Sorry, Smoking Sucks.

[onthestrip]

And we disagree quite stridently on that point. External studies may show his business will increase, but the fact that someone else "knows better" about his business shouldn't trump the ability for him to make a decision even if a third party doesn't think its in his own best interest.

Im not using the idea that business has shown to increase as my argument, because it may not be true for every establishment. Its really just an incentive.

The basic premise of my argument is that bars and restaurants are public spaces, and you shouldnt be allowed to taint the air of indoor public spaces.

[SoonerDave]

Sorry, Smoking Sucks.

Agree completely, which is what makes arguing for the smoker so very, very frustrating for me! I *hate* it. But in the grand scheme of things, there are worse things we should criminalize.

[SoonerDave]

nm

[BoulderSooner]

workers rights issue

[Martin]

since it's a workers' rights issue... nannies, housekeepers, landscapers and maintenance workers all have the right to prevent me from smoking in my own home? -M

[RadicalModerate]

I think a primary cause of second-hand-smoking-related health issues is worrying too much about what causes second-hand-smoking-related health issues. I would suggest some sort of "mood-elevator"/"SomaBraveNewWorld-esque" prescription medication to counter these self-fullfilling psychosomatic ailments, but those lawyer vs. drug-company ads on TV regarding the side effects freak me out too much to do so.