Smoking Laws

[onthestrip]

Hopefully this will be the year the state gets with the program and allows cities to make smoking laws. The article points out the hypocrisy of lawmakers who argue against the federal government getting in states way yet wont allow even more local cities address their health problems. And Sen Crain seems to remain as the big tobacco puppet that he was earlier in the year when he single handedly killed this bill.

Smoking bill to be health care priority in Oklahoma, health commissioner says | NewsOK.com

[Pete]

Oklahoma is one of the very last states to get on board with tougher anti-smoking laws. And it also has one of the highest smoking (and death from smoking) rates in the U.S.

It's a sad state of affairs when Ireland and France are way more strict than a U.S. state.

[SoonerDave]

Oklahoma is one of the very last states to get on board with tougher anti-smoking laws. And it also has one of the highest smoking (and death from smoking) rates in the U.S.

It's a sad state of affairs when Ireland and France are way more strict than a U.S. state.

If I may take the "devil's advocate" position, why is there an implicit expectation that a U.S. State *should* be more strict?

I loathe smoking as much as the next guy. But what happens when the Next Big Lobby Of We Know Better Than You comes along and decides to encourage the ban of, say, cheeseburgers...because eating one every day will probably give you a heart attack, and we're at the bottom of the health polls, etc. Or eating bacon. Or whatever "pet cause du jour" happens to be in vogue.

Mind you, and let me make this clear: I loathe and detest smoking. I remember going to OU home games as a kid and being surrounded by cigarette (and other) smoke. And I have zero problem with private companies making no-smoking rules in their own facilities. That's the way it absolutely should be.

I have a really, really tough time creating a situation wherein a city has the authority to make a criminal out of an activity like smoking (or eating cheeseburgers) in the privacy of their own home.

The nanny state really, really needs to stop somewhere.

[Pete]

If I may take the "devil's advocate" position, why is there an implicit expectation that a U.S. State *should* be more strict?

Because historically, smoking has been a much bigger part of those cultures than it ever has been in the U.S., yet they have very comprehensive restrictions that have been implemented pretty seamlessly.


Cheeseburgers and just about anything else legally sold are not inherently unhealthy. Smoking is profoundly unhealthy, even in moderation. And there are massively expensive consequences to the whole of society, even if you don't care if someone is exercising their personal freedom to severely compromise their own health.

And nobody is talking about limiting smoking in private homes; unless it's a workplace that meets certain criteria, in which case there have been laws on the books for years.

[SoonerDave]

If your cheeseburger found a way to my lungs, I'd be trying to stop you from eating those around me too.

But the argument here isn't about getting into your lungs (although some of the discussion here has been). It's about a "health and safety issue," which makes it infinitely simpler to rationalize. It's a one-off of "It's for the children... as if only child hating wife beaters could possibly oppose their moral high ground.

See, I don't mind being a burr in the saddle on this issue even though I don't smoke, because even though it isn't my personal ox being gored, someday, it might be. If we all stop fighting an issue merely because it's someone else's problem, there's no one left to fight when mine comes around.

And I honestly won't even get into the statistical tomfoolery that's long been associated with the secondhand smoke business...

[Skyline]

And yet Oklahoma liquor laws are some of the more restrictive in the U.S.

Smoke up, but don't sell liquor at the grocery store or cold beer at the liquor store.

[SoonerDave]

Because historically, smoking has been a much bigger part of those cultures than it ever has been in the U.S., yet they have very comprehensive restrictions that have been implemented pretty seamlessly.


Cheeseburgers and just about anything else legally sold are not inherently unhealthy. Smoking is profoundly unhealthy, even in moderation. And there are massively expensive consequences to the whole of society, even if you don't care if someone is exercising their personal freedom to severely compromise their own health.

And nobody is talking about limiting smoking in private homes; unless it's a workplace that meets certain criteria, in which case there have been laws on the books for years.

Oh, no? Well, that's a surprise to some folks in California, as noted this article..http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55272958,d.cGE
The point is there's no threshhold at which the entities who want to impose "health and safety" on the public will stop. And that's why we have to tread very carefully on issues like this, no matter how "good" the intentions.

[Pete]

I agree that we should tread lightly, but what Oklahoma is talking about doing has already been implemented in most states and lots of countries.

This legislation isn't moving the line, it's just attempting to bring Oklahoma into the 1990's when it comes to smoking laws.

[betts]

Oh, no? Well, that's a surprise to some folks in California, as noted this article..http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55272958,d.cGE
The point is there's no threshhold at which the entities who want to impose "health and safety" on the public will stop. And that's why we have to tread very carefully on issues like this, no matter how "good" the intentions.

If it were the smoker's personal health that were being imposed upon, I would agree with you. We as innocent bystanders have our right to clean air infringed upon by smokers if there are not regulations restricting where you can smoke. As a holder of insurance and contributor to Medicaid and Medicare, that smoker's choices negatively impact me financially. As a pediatrician that smoker's decision to smoke in his own home negatively affects the health of his children, whom I am trying to keep healthy. I can't legally pee on your leg (pee is sterile and threatens no one's health), but a smoker can blow the asthma and cancer-inducing effluent from his or her lungs in my face.

[onthestrip]

I agree that we should tread lightly, but what Oklahoma is talking about doing has already been implemented in most states and lots of countries.

This legislation isn't moving the line, it's just attempting to bring Oklahoma into the 1990's when it comes to smoking laws.

Currently Oklahoma and Tennessee are the ONLY states that wont allow cities to make stricter smoking laws than the state already has. This will only allow cities accross the states to potentially make more public smoking bans than there already are.

I know Oklahomans like to stand out from the crowd of other states but when you become one of the last to do something, its safe to say we are behind the times. This will go a long way in reducing our extremely high smoking rate. So you have to get off your barstool to go smoke outside, not that big of a deal.

[onthestrip]

The point is there's no threshhold at which the entities who want to impose "health and safety" on the public will stop. And that's why we have to tread very carefully on issues like this, no matter how "good" the intentions.

Tread lighlty? This is something that 48 other states have done. This wont force you to give up your ciggs in your home, only allows cities to enact stricter public smoking bans.

[OKCRT]

If it were the smoker's personal health that were being imposed upon, I would agree with you. We as innocent bystanders have our right to clean air infringed upon by smokers if there are not regulations restricting where you can smoke. As a holder of insurance and contributor to Medicaid and Medicare, that smoker's choices negatively impact me financially. As a pediatrician that smoker's decision to smoke in his own home negatively affects the health of his children, whom I am trying to keep healthy. I can't legally pee on your leg (pee is sterile and threatens no one's health), but a smoker can blow the asthma and cancer-inducing effluent from his or her lungs in my face.

Freedom of choice. If you see a smoker near you simply move away. Besides,there's so many pollutants in the air I seriously doubt that a smoker is going to impact your health anymore than it already is. Look at all the cars/trucks/buses ect. that are pumping out much more second hand smoke and any smoker could do. We all breath this everyday. Now if you were locked up in a room full of chain smokers that would be different.

[Pete]

I know Oklahomans like to stand out from the crowd of other states but when you become one of the last to do something, its safe to say we are behind the times. This will go a long way in reducing our extremely high smoking rate. So you have to get off your barstool to go smoke outside, not that big of a deal.

The only way Oklahoma stands out in any health measurement is in negative; almost always falling near the very bottom in just about any statistic.

Studies have shown that smoking limitations and bans decrease smoking rates and do not negatively affect businesses.

It makes sense if you think about it... Most only consider the people already addicted and how having to go outside to smoke won't really change their habits (although it does, at least to a small degree). But more importantly, it has a profound impact on younger people not getting addicted in the first place, as many start and become habitual smokers while hanging out in bars and clubs.

Here in California, we've had very tough smoking laws for 15+ years and I can tell you that it's rare to see college-age kids smoking. Some always will, but I've noticed a big difference just in the last decade. I have a ton of younger friends and absolutely none of them smoke; they just never got started in the first place.

It's not only due to restrictions in bars but also because most schools themselves don't allow you to smoke ANYWHERE on campus.

Hard to get addicted to something when you can't ever really do it in the first place.

[Easy180]

If your cheeseburger found a way to my lungs, I'd be trying to stop you from eating those around me too.

This^

Can't believe that anyone still chooses to smoke death sticks anyway in the 21st century..Decades after folks realized they weren't loaded with vitamins

[RadicalModerate]

Here is a little "food for thought" for the "pure air purists": Remember when they blew up the Bitmore Hotel? Remember the cloud of noxious dust--reminiscent of the worst of The Dust Bowl Days-- that settled over the city? How much asbestos do you suppose was in that cloud? Or how about brake linings . . . They used to contain asbestos . . . One day it occured to me that the activities of a lot of bicyclists and joggers on and by the roadways, especially in the vicinity of stop lights and stop signs (where brakes are applies, leaving their deadly residue behind), might be counter-productive, healthwise. And then there was the day--back in maybe 1977?--when I was part of a crew drinking some coffee in the garage area of an unfinished building and noticed that all of the boxes of drywall compound stacked out there for future use were stamped "Non-Asbestos". It helped me pick up on the concept that they wouldn't have been so stamped if a lot of older drywall compound contained asbestos for "fire-safety" reasons. Which is something you might want to consider or have tested the next time you do a remodeling project involving tearing out any sheetrock that was taped a bedded prior to the mid-70's . . . "Second-Hand Smoke?" That is the LEAST of your worries . . . =)

[boscorama]

We've come a long way since smoking was banned in movie theatres by 1972, forty-plus years ago. It'd be foolish to think anything habitual/unhealthy (cheeseburgers, Little Debbies, for example) isn't subject to rule by health mob hysteria.

[Pete]

I remember flying to Europe in the 80's on American Airlines and they still allowed smoking!

12+ hours of everyone on that plane breathing in smoke from a bunch of different people. Amazing that that wasn't that long ago.

[RadicalModerate]

Wasn't it back around then that some claim the AIDS virus began to be spread by a Canadian Flight Attendant who probably smoked those nasty, choking Galouis or Disque Bleu on the plane? At least it wasn't on a return flight from Kenya/Uganda loaded up with Ebola . . . (and back then, they probably had complimentary peanuts on the plane in total disregard of future AllergySufferers)

[RodH]

It appears that the State's policy is do as I say and not as I do. Employees are not allowed to smoke on state property. But cities are not allowed to restrict smoking in public parks.

[ljbab728]

I remember flying to Europe in the 80's on American Airlines and they still allowed smoking!

12+ hours of everyone on that plane breathing in smoke from a bunch of different people. Amazing that that wasn't that long ago.

The US Airline smoking ban was gradually phased in starting 1979 until the final system of no smoking of any kind on any plane went into place in 2000.

[RadicalModerate]

Hopefully this will be the year the state gets with the program and allows cities to make smoking laws. The article points out the hypocrisy of lawmakers who argue against the federal government getting in states way yet wont allow even more local cities address their health problems. And Sen Crain seems to remain as the big tobacco puppet that he was earlier in the year when he single handedly killed this bill.

Smoking bill to be health care priority in Oklahoma, health commissioner says | NewsOK.com

Since there seems to be very little evidence that the folks "in power" who seem to be rejecting the metaphorical/allegorical "peace pipe" on the cusp of the Fiscal Cliff etc. and so forth . . . How 'bout they write a "Law" that outlaws "bars" as places where marijuana and tobacco can be smoked freely and place "pubs" as a place you might choose to be if you enjoy small portions of Mother Nature and Uncle Sam's bounty? Not "Vegas" enough?

Edited to Add: "Fer ya'"[dang]

[progressiveboy]

The only way Oklahoma stands out in any health measurement is in negative; almost always falling near the very bottom in just about any statistic.

Studies have shown that smoking limitations and bans decrease smoking rates and do not negatively affect businesses.

It makes sense if you think about it... Most only consider the people already addicted and how having to go outside to smoke won't really change their habits (although it does, at least to a small degree). But more importantly, it has a profound impact on younger people not getting addicted in the first place, as many start and become habitual smokers while hanging out in bars and clubs.

Here in California, we've had very tough smoking laws for 15+ years and I can tell you that it's rare to see college-age kids smoking. Some always will, but I've noticed a big difference just in the last decade. I have a ton of younger friends and absolutely none of them smoke; they just never got started in the first place.

It's not only due to restrictions in bars but also because most schools themselves don't allow you to smoke ANYWHERE on campus.

Hard to get addicted to something when you can't ever really do it in the first place.

Do you think it's due to a cultural mindset in Oklahoma? What factors play into all the negative health measurements? This only hurts Oklahoma because of high cost of health related illness that could be avoided simply by doing the rational, sound choice of not smoking. Addiction is a very hard thing to overcome, however, people do overcome it all the time. It comes down to shear "will".

[BoulderSooner]

to me this is a workers rights issue ... period ... right to a safe work environment ..

[boscorama]

I remember flying to Europe in the 80's on American Airlines and they still allowed smoking!

12+ hours of everyone on that plane breathing in smoke from a bunch of different people. Amazing that that wasn't that long ago.

By the 80's, smokers were seated at the rear of the plane which was okay by me, as other smokers would pay for my cocktails and all was fun. Until someone observed that the back might be safer in crashes ... Damn smokers safer than nonsmokers? They must go!

[RadicalModerate]

Can the back of the plane really be safer when there is this sort of distracted flying going on up front?

Or is it only an illusion of safety?
(and I wonder what the navigator in that clip was smoking: " . . . Indoobutablees"???