I think this is a great idea for lots of reasons. I always thought allowing places to build smoking rooms was a bad first step and now as a result, those places can keep the dedicated rooms for five more years.

California has even stricter rules -- most don't even allow smoking on outdoor patios and some beaches have bans as well -- and after a brief adjustment, business actually increased at restaurants and clubs.

Even Ireland has banned smoking in all their restaurants and pubs... Time for Oklahoma to get with the times!

**********************************



State panel OKs ban on smoking in public places
By The Associated Press

A state Senate committee has voted for a bill that would ban smoking in all bars and restaurants.

The Legislature banned smoking in most public places in a 2003 law, but granted some exceptions. Restaurants, for instance, were allowed to build smoking rooms for their customers who smoke.

Under the bill passed Monday by the Senate Business and Labor Committee, restaurants that built separate smoking areas will have until 2013 to go completely smoke free.

However, smoking in bars, even cigar bars, would be banned when the law takes effect on Nov. 1.

Sen. David Myers of Ponca City sponsored the legislation, citing the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Sen. Randy Brogan of Owasso says the bill went too far because tobacco is a legal substance. He offered an amendment to ban the sale and distribution of tobacco products, but it died for lack of a second.

i don't agree with it. personally, i don't smoke and i don't like being around smoke. i probably wouldn't frequent a smoke-filled restaurant. however, i believe that as long as tobacco is a legal substance that it is the right of the property owner to dictate whether his establishment is smoke-free or not. if i don't like a smoke-filled restauraunt, i don't have to dine there... and if enough consumers demand smoke-free environments then that alone will put sufficient pressure on businesses to be smoke-free. -M

Say good bye to Maker's.

The fundamental issue is that these places are workplaces and no worker should be made to breathe second-hand smoke.

Yes, they can choose to work elsewhere but you could make the same argument for any workplace.

These laws have worked out great everywhere they've been implemented and the simple fact is that Oklahoma is lagging behind. As someone that lives in a place with strict laws, the lack of the same in any state would be a significant deterent for me (and I would assume many others) relocating.

As conservative as this state is, I don't see why we are so behind on smoking laws. I'm all for the ban. Ban it in cars too - I am so sick of seeing people smoke in their cars with children present.

i respect your position, pete... however, i think that the effects of second-hand smoke have been overstated by those with an anti-smoking agenda. the idea that oklahoma is 'lagging behind' other states assumes that such restrictive laws are good things. i don't feel as if the government should be protecting and regulating every facet of my life. honestly, i doubt that oklahoma's smoking laws will factor too highly in the average person's decision whether or not to relocate here. -M

i respect your position, pete... however, i think that the effects of second-hand smoke have been overstated by those with an anti-smoking agenda. the idea that oklahoma is 'lagging behind' other states assumes that such restrictive laws are good things. i don't feel as if the government should be protecting and regulating every facet of my life. honestly, i doubt that oklahoma's smoking laws will factor too highly in the average person's decision whether or not to relocate here. -M

How in the world can you think second hand smoke statements are overstated?? Please don't tell me you are one of those "i smoked 3 packs a day and drank a bottle of jack while i was pregnant and my kids are fine" people. It's not just a made up evil plot by nonsmokers. It has medically been proven that second hand smoke is damaging and harmful.

Forget scientific studies, plain common sense tells you that breathing in smoke in an enclosed area for 40-50 hours a weeks is really bad for you, which is exactly why smoking has been banned in every other place people work -- and that happened some time ago.

I am generally against the government imposing restrictions on personal freedoms but in this case they are actually protecting the rights of people that frequently don't have a lot of employment options. Waiting tables and tending bar offers a way for people to make decent money if they hustle and they shouldn't have to get lung cancer as a consequence.


There just really isn't a downside. Beside all the doomsayers in every other place (and there are many) that have these types of laws, it all works out for the best after a brief adjustment period.

Just wondering...If the lawmakers that are tryin to pass the law are also the ones that are smoking out back from the capital building. Also, If I choose to smoke in my front yard can I get a ticket? I think it should be left up to businesses on their own levels. They want to allow smokers let them. Yes the government is suppose to "take care" of its citizens. With that said, why won't our government let the citizens vote on it. Why not put it up for a public vote?

Oh yeah almost forgot. With this ban does that mean all those tailgaters at an OU home game could face some type of ticketing for smoking?

Banning smoking is all fine and good...but banning smoking in cigar bars? Re. Tarded.

Makers and the like are not included in this. So, your cigar bar will be saved. Although, it's hard to enjoy the sweet smelling cigar smoke for all of the cigarette smoke in there, but I digress.

EDIT Nevermind. I saw an earlier version of this (the proposed legislation) where it said that Makers and similar establishments would be exempt from the law. Maybe you can still smoke cigars, but no cigarettes.....?

This thread reminds me of an old saying....

...Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

It is *easy* to jump on the bandwagon for something like smoking.

It may be different if *your* ox is gored next.

Don't get me wrong; I despise smoking. It infuriates me to see a child in a car with two maroons puffing it up. I hate having to go through a smoking area in a restaurant to get to the non-smoking area.

But I also know that if our wonderful gummint gets a head of steam "banning" things in public places, they just might get to banning something I wouldn't be so happy about....all in the name of "protecting" me.

I think I need protection from our wonderful nanny government.

-SoonerDave

I say when your rights encroach upon my rights, it should be banned. BUT - I would be willing to compromise and say that a law forbidding children in smoking areas would work. We as adults can make the choice as to whether we visit a place where smoking is allowed and/or work in a place that allows smoking. Children can not make a decision like that. They go where the parents say they go.

I think it's ridiculous to ban smoking in cigar bars. If you choose to go to a bar that is a designated smoking bar, then that is a personal choice. However, we've already made all sorts of things illegal that hurt only the user and not bystanders, so I don't think any precedents are being established by banning smoking that aren't already there.

I wish they'd crack down on people throwing cigarette butts out their car windows. With all the fires we've had the last few years, it kills me when I see people do it. Plus, I don't want your sparky bouncing off of my windshield. There's a reason your freakin' car came with an ashtray. Use it.

Butts all over the ground outside of any building tick me off too. Pick up after yourselves, you inconsiderate dillhole.

/neat freak

I wish they'd crack down on people throwing cigarette butts out their car windows. With all the fires we've had the last few years, it kills me when I see people do it. Plus, I don't want your sparky bouncing off of my windshield. There's a reason your freakin' car came with an ashtray. Use it.

Butts all over the ground outside of any building tick me off too. Pick up after yourselves, you inconsiderate dillhole.

/neat freak

LOL. I love your passion. Your posts always crack me up. And I agree.

lol...I sit between two smokers at work. You should hear the things I say to them when they get back from their hourly smoke break smelling like ashtrays. :D

The state will next work on legislation banning tanning salons, because they can cause skin cancer. ;)

This is over-legislating just a tad.

I wish they'd crack down on people throwing cigarette butts out their car windows. With all the fires we've had the last few years, it kills me when I see people do it. Plus, I don't want your sparky bouncing off of my windshield. There's a reason your freakin' car came with an ashtray. Use it.

Butts all over the ground outside of any building tick me off too. Pick up after yourselves, you inconsiderate dillhole.

/neat freak

OGTS, this is something I can completely agree with you. It's illegal to throw them out but I see people do it in front of cops all the time and it pisses me off the cops don't do anything in this state. We need to seriously crack down on this issue. If the cigarette is not good enough to keep in your car's ashtray until you get to an ashtray, you probably shouldn't be smoking at all dillhole!

Forget scientific studies, plain common sense tells you that breathing in smoke in an enclosed area for 40-50 hours a weeks is really bad for you, which is exactly why smoking has been banned in every other place people work -- and that happened some time ago.

I am generally against the government imposing restrictions on personal freedoms but in this case they are actually protecting the rights of people that frequently don't have a lot of employment options. Waiting tables and tending bar offers a way for people to make decent money if they hustle and they shouldn't have to get lung cancer as a consequence.


There just really isn't a downside. Beside all the doomsayers in every other place (and there are many) that have these types of laws, it all works out for the best after a brief adjustment period.

Pete, I totally agree with you on this smoking issue. I have moderate to severe asthma and I'm tired of breathing dirty air all the time because of "inconsiderate dillholes" (in the words of OGTS). While yes, sometimes I do have the choice to patronize somewhere or not if I know it is smoky, but sometimes I don't have that choice, sometimes people are such dillholes that they just disobey the law in the first place. I can't tell you how many public places that have signs/stickers saying smoking is banned period on the grounds or banned within 25 feet of the door (even hospital) and some jerkoff is puffing it up right by the hospital door, making me breathe it in. Same thing with concerts in Ford Center, Coca Cola center, etc. I've seen/walked by plenty of jerks that light up in the public places despite it being banned instead of going to the designated places. Heck, want to know something even more stupid?? I was in the Belle Isle Ross store last night and some moron lady was smoking in the store, in between puffs, she put the lit cigarette in her purse and her purse was just smoking away! Complete ignorance!!! This is the stuff that really pisses me off in principle, let alone me being a bad asthmatic and having to breathe in stuff that gives me a hard time breathing for days or being able to sleep because I can't get much oxygen because of somebody elses stupid choices. What about non-smokers rights? We don't have a choice about breathing it in in certain places we want to go, smokers DO have a choice if they want to breathe it in. I agree Pete, Oklahoma needs to get with the times on smoking laws, have a good PR campaign promoting it.

This is tonight's topic on "The Rant". We'll see how they spin it.

if they want to ban smoking everywhere, they should make smoking as a whole illegal.
i dont smoke, but frankly i wish the government would stay out of our lives. next they'll tell you what you can and cant eat. or tell you what temperature you can have your house.... oh wait...

I admit that I have some conflicting feelings about restricting the rights of individuals and there are examples here in California of taking things a bit too far.

For example, there are some communities that have banned smoking *everywhere* but private homes. No smoking at parks, parking lots, outdoor shopping areas, beaches, etc. In fact, smoking is not allowed in cars that contain children below a certain age.

I think this is a case of the majority imposing their will on others and that's not always a good thing.


But I can assure you that after living somewhere with strict laws and thus going very long periods of time without even smelling smoke, there is no way I could live in a place that allowed smoking in bars and restaurants. After being completely protected from it for so long, being in such an environment is absolutely nauseating. And it makes you realize how incredibly disgusting it is for people to be eating and drinking in a cloud of cig smoke.

Last summer, for example, I was in Wisconsin and as much as I love Milwaukee, I literally couldn't eat a meal because there was smoking in the bar area of a restaurant my family chose that wafted into the entire room. Madison, however, has similar laws to Cali, NY, Colorado, etc.

Pete, does California not have places like Makers, or is there some kind of exception?

This is great news.

That is all.

:) :) :)

So we can make smoking in public places illegal, although people can very well choose to avoid establishments which allow it in some form, but we can't seem to get much done about the pollution that we can't avoid no matter what. I hate to jump on the "green" bandwagon too strongly, but I would rather see legislators enforcing pollution laws in relation to state refineries and other industrial smog factories than something that people can avoid. While yes our rights are essentially being impeded upon by the Homeland stocker who gets his fix right in front of the door., all of us have our rights thrown out the window the minute we step outside and breath in a nice gulp of smog. Also if you live in Edmond, you get the extra bonus of that wonderful Purina aroma when the wind blows just right. Well I am done, sorry for the rant.

Good points, Immortal.

The state will next work on legislation banning tanning salons, because they can cause skin cancer. ;)

This is over-legislating just a tad.

When you tan, it doesn't give me skin cancer. That's the difference. You can make your skin as leathery and orange as you wish and it doesn't hurt me at all.
You can eat all the crap you want, and it won't give me a heart attack. Smoking, however, DOES affect those around you. It's not just about your right to do so, it's about our rights to NOT do so.

I've been a smoker for a long long time - and I wish it was illegal. I quit on New Years and plan on not picking it back up. But even when I did smoke, I didn't do it in cars or in front of children or in stores...this all goes back to that whole existentialism theory I have about people. Most people do not think beyond themselves. No social or community ethics. aka - dillholes.

...and when you smoke, it doesn't give me lung cancer. the epa was successfully sued over the validity of the reports claiming otherwise. the only reason they won on appeal was because the report didn't represent a legally binding document. i concede that second-hand smoke can cause respiratory irritation and can enflame allergies and asthma... but a direct link between seond-hand smoke and lung cancer hasn't been proven.

"Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year. "
- American Lung Association

...so did they make this up?

...and when you smoke, it doesn't give me lung cancer. the epa was successfully sued over the validity of the reports claiming otherwise. the only reason they won on appeal was because the report didn't represent a legally binding document. i concede that second-hand smoke can cause respiratory irritation and can enflame allergies and asthma... but a direct link between seond-hand smoke and lung cancer hasn't been proven.


What are you smoking? All of a sudden second hand smoke isn't harmful and doesn't cause cancer?

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet

June 2007

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

*
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2
*
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3
*
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4
*
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5
*
Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7
*
Fifteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Utah have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken full effect yet.8
*
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9
*
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11
*
In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13
*
New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14
*
The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.15

For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website at Home - American Lung Association site (http://www.lungusa.org), or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

I can't wait to see how this effects businesses. Though, strangely enough, most smokers are overly passive. Conversely, when they outlaw drinking in said establishments I'm sure the extremely vocal and belligerent drinkers would raise quite a stink...and all of you against "second-hand smoke" would not be so anti-second-hand drinking.

...and when you smoke, it doesn't give me lung cancer. the epa was successfully sued over the validity of the reports claiming otherwise. the only reason they won on appeal was because the report didn't represent a legally binding document. i concede that second-hand smoke can cause respiratory irritation and can enflame allergies and asthma... but a direct link between seond-hand smoke and lung cancer hasn't been proven.

And OJ got out free, what's your point? Lawyers are good liars.

When this happened in Austin my friends and I were adamantly against it. Most of us voted for the first time because of this issue, and we all voted against the ban. It ended up passing and we watched a lot of our friends in the service industry struggle for a long time to get by because initially business was down everywhere. Eventually everything worked itself out, but I was still against it...until I noticed how much less I was smoking. It’s a tough subject and I’m torn, I see both sides. Now that I’m a non-smoker (two weeks today, hooray!) we’ll see if my perspective changes.

*sigh* believe what you want, guys. the epa report that lists ets as a carcinogen has been proven to be bad science... that's the very report i was previously discussing. tell me how they arrived at their numbers then we'll talk.

-M

You are seriously living in a dream world if you think second hand smoke isn't harmful. You just made me LOL.

Even the EPA did a study on children who lived in homes of smokers and they found nicotine in their bloodstream.

Okay, kids, its time for a quick lesson in statistics, and how they're manipulated to prove a point.

The EPA (as is most of the environmental crowd) is among the chief offenders in statistical manipulation.

The single biggest offender in statisticial manipulation is in the way a group or organization will want you to draw an inference regarding causation from a statistical correlation. The two could not be more dissimilar.

A statistical correlation shows that as one variable changes, another variable changes. Correlations, however, never prove causation. Here's an example: 100% of the people who lived 200 years ago drank water. 100% of the people who lived 200 years ago are dead. Therefore, the water killed them.

That's obviously ridiculous thinking. But it is also precisely the kind of technique used to allow someone to believe causation exists when it really doesn't. To prove it, you need a controlled, scientific study designed to measure that theorized causation. That's expensive. And it doesn't always prove what you want it to prove, so as long as the public thinks the way you want them to think, why rock the boat, right?

The finding in the lawsuit referenced above dealt, among other things, with precisely that issue - what had been shown to be true versus what had been implied to be true.

Statistics like the one stating "Secondhand smoke causes 3,400 deaths each year" and "Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear" are statistical *hogwash*. Those numbers are barely better than an extrapolation of certain correlations drawn from other studies that are then spouted as conclusions, when no such formal, scientific, controlled, peer-reviewed study has been done to prove the relationship. In practical terms, many of the conclusions spouted as fact are, as a practical matter, impossible to prove.

Here's a different example. Raise your hand if you think it has been proven that a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet will reduce your risk for heart disease....be honest...

Guess what? Three indpendent, controlled, peer-reviewed studies performed by different organizations among individuals who controlled their dietary intake of fats showed no statistically significant difference in heart disease rates over a multi-year period. And the decrease in absolute risk for heart disease for someone taking a statin drug? Only 1.5%.

The advertising tells us one thing. Buy "heart healthy food." "Buy our pills." "Believe what we tell you." The science, however, tells us you're probably wasting your time AND your money.

Thirty years ago, there was hysteria that saccharin - an artificial sweetener - caused cancer in lab rats. Warning labels everywhere. Hysteria. We later found out that the statistically equivalent dosage for humans was about 800 cans per person per day. Untold millions wasted due to unscientific alarmism.

Thirty years ago, the UN banned DDT because someone said it would screw up bird DNA. Now, we know the science behind that nonsense was, in fact, nonsense, and deprived many third-world countries of an effective pesticide against mosquitos. It also left in its wake a veritable genocide of peoples dying from malaria absolutely needlessly. Now, those same countries are working to get DDT production restarted.

I could go on, but I hope the point has been made. The cholesterol scam is worthy of an entire dissertation, as are the global warming folks, but I won't go into that here. The point is that innuendo, statistical correlation, and emotional hyperbole do not prove that "thing X" causes "thing Y" We would all do ourselves a great service if we could learn that simple, fundamental, statistical truth.


I'll leave you with this little gem:


The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke

What a ridiculous, meaningless statement!! I could just as easily say there's no risk-free level of exposure to air (I might suffocate), or water (I might drown), or toilet paper (I might die from an allergic reaction to the paper dust). That is nothing short of agenda-based politicking intending to create hysteria under the illusion of science.

Unfortunately, hysteria sells, and the unsexy, unexciting truth gets lost in the shuffle.

-sd

I guess it's a good thing they use epidemiology instead of statistics to show how harmful second hand smoke is then, huh.

I guess it's a good thing they use epidemiology instead of statistics to show how harmful second hand smoke is then, huh.

The point isn't to villify or praise second hand smoke. It is to condemn the use of half-baked statistics to make a point in pursuit of an agenda under the presumptive cover of "science."

As an aside, what, exactly, do you think epidemiology is other than a specific class of statistics? When you see that so-called "fact sheet" filled with "may cause...which may cause...which is associated with....that may cause...." is weak-link followed by weak-link.....the creation of a conclusion based on the extrapolation of correlations rather than scientifically proven causation.

Epidemiology shows spread and frequency of various kinds of diseases, not necessarily causation.

-Soonerdave

So Dave, do you think it is healthy for non-smokers to breathe in secondhand smoke? It's common sense that breathing in smoke makes people caugh, throat swell up, and choke that it is not good for you, that's your body's mechanism for telling this thing is bad for you. Heck, we all know all the chemicals(meaning man made) in cigarettes can't be good for you. Our body's are resiliant machines, but they aren't designed to put all the garbage, including smoke into them.

Riddle me this to all the naysayers, I work in a medical facility, there are no smoking facility/ no smoking signs everywhere. Some Joe Blow dillhole was smoking literally right at the main entrance door this morning on my way in. Do you think that is fair because of his ignorance and not obeying the law that I should have to breathe that crap in? Let alone sick patients coming in and out? I know you all say that it's our choice if we go somewhere that we know may have smoke, but what if we patronize places that we know don't allow smoke, and yet morons are puffing their cancer sticks where we have to walk by. This is the problem us non-smoker supporters of this are talking about. Perhaps the problem is more on the enforcement side of things (which we know most places can't be policed efficiently, therefore a widespread ban is the only way to counteract the problem).

so we should write a law to ban smoking in restaurants because it makes some people cough? if i stand around those sizzling fajitas you ordered, i might cough and choke... should we ban that, too?

-M

fajitas normally wouldn't contain man-made chemicals and carcinogens and haven't been documented as a killer.

I'm thrilled about this.

But, I realize, it's a personal preference, probably dependent upon your smoking or not smoking practices.

I think most of us agree that second hand smoke just isn't all that pleasant to be around for many reasons.

But, there is no way that I believe it isn't dangerous.. I can't prove the severity of the claims, ie cancer but I have experienced the direct results of it.

I just spent five days in Vegas....even with all of the ventilation, my eyes were dried out and stinging, throat dry, nasal passages irritated .... clothes and hair sickeningly stinky from cigarette smoke - yuk.

(Why do people decide to talk to me and insist on turning my direction and exhaling right in my face?)

I realize it might be an infringement upon our rights and I am a little concerned about 'Big Brother' but overall, I think it's a good thing to protect those who don't want to breathe toxic chemicals.

We all make concessions on things. I can't walk down the street sipping a glass of wine so it makes sense that people can't walk down the street blowing smoke.

Forget going to the local bar, just let me know when the house next door is on fire and I'll come sit in the living room and inhale that smoke.:rolleyes:

So Dave, do you think it is healthy for non-smokers to breathe in secondhand smoke? It's common sense that breathing in smoke makes people caugh, throat swell up, and choke that it is not good for you, that's your body's mechanism for telling this thing is bad for you. Heck, we all know all the chemicals(meaning man made) in cigarettes can't be good for you. Our body's are resiliant machines, but they aren't designed to put all the garbage, including smoke into them.

Again, you're missing the point. Don't read into my post more than is present. I am saying that the abuse of statistics for the purposes of exaggerating or manufacturing facts to further a cause is pitiable. I fully realize that common sense dictates you don't want to breathe any smoke, but why is it necessary to manufacture all kinds of "statistics" for it? Doesn't the issue stand on its own two feet without all the hyperbole?



Riddle me this to all the naysayers, I work in a medical facility, there are no smoking facility/ no smoking signs everywhere. Some Joe Blow dillhole was smoking literally right at the main entrance door this morning on my way in. Do you think that is fair because of his ignorance and not obeying the law that I should have to breathe that crap in?

Again, you're indirectly referring to me as a "naysayer," implying that I don't believe 2nd hand smoke is bad. Please tell me where I've said that.

If hospitals and businesses want to create smoke-free zones in their buildings, I have no problem with it. I do get nervous when the government mandates it.


This is the problem us non-smoker supporters of this are talking about. Perhaps the problem is more on the enforcement side of things (which we know most places can't be policed efficiently, therefore a widespread ban is the only way to counteract the problem).

Which is precisely the hypocrisy behind this entire action. If the government were truly serious about eliminating smoking, they'd ban the sale of cigarettes, period. The point is the government has no intention of ever doing that, because that same government is dependent upon the revenues it generates. It creates the illusion of the government "doing something" when, in reality, the concept is unenforceable. Let's face it, are we going to start building more jails for all the new criminals we'll be creating whose crime is that they smoked 2" inside the government-mandated smoke-free zone?

Let me reiterate something - I despise smoking. I wish it would go away forever tomorrow. In that narrow vein of "I don't like it, I'm glad its banned," then this kind of ban works in my personal interest. But I also know that if you give the gummint an inch, they'll take a mile, and the next thing they ban "in the public interest" might not be so palatable.

You've got officials in some parts of the country that are literally trying to legislate how we eat, how we're allowed to support our political candidates and causes, heck, even how we cook our steaks in our backyard. We can all slap our backs and s****** at the yahoos who continue to puff up, when the ban goes into effect, but when the government decides the next "ban" on the list is *your* personal "thing," you may well find yourself on the wrong side of the proverbial eight-ball.

-SoonerDave

fajitas normally wouldn't contain man-made chemicals and carcinogens and haven't been documented as a killer.

Nah, they wouldn't have anything like meat tenderizer, or preservatives, or ash from the cooking process, or growth hormones from the beef, or detergent residue on the plate from the last time it was washed....

Sorry, Metro, but you can't escape "chemicals."

-sd

Regardless of it's harmful effects, regardless of whether you smoke or not - it boils down to this : Smoking is the only thing that intrudes your rights on other people's rights. If you drink liquor, that doesn't mean I have to. If you watch sports in a bar - I can choose to not look at the tv. If you tan, I don't have to. Just because McDonalds exists doesn't mean I have to eat it. If you shoot heroin, it doesn't make me high. We all as adults can make choices for ourselves as to what we want subjected to our bodies. Except smoking! Whether I believe it's harmful or not, when you sit next to me and smoke I don't have a choice as to whether I want to inhale the second hand smoke or not. It's not about protecting you from harmful chemicals - it's about having the freedom to choose them or not.

Smoking is the only thing that intrudes your rights on other people's rights.

Serious question on that basis, kmf....

What about speech? If I'm standing next to you on a street corner, but I'm talking to someone else, and I espouse some political belief you don't like, you don't have much choice but to hear it. Am I violating your rights?

-sd

Serious question on that basis, kmf....

What about speech? If I'm standing next to you on a street corner, but I'm talking to someone else, and I espouse some political belief you don't like, you don't have much choice but to hear it. Am I violating your rights?

-sd

Speech isn't something I have to put in my body. Although I may not like what you have to say, or I may not like the shirt you are wearing that I have to see - it in no way intrudes my space or subjects me to harm. Unless you are saying something like "I'm going to kill ___ (insert my name)" and you have a gun in your hand. I have a choice to ignore what you say. I don't have a choice to ignore second hand smoke.

When I see/hear disucssions on this topic I see people talking about how their hair smells or food tastes bad because of secondhand smoke. Then you see a cancer statistic about smoking. Well, here is a couple more thing to think about:
1- Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in Oklahoma
2-Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S.
The connection is easy --- see the information below from the Center for Disease Control about secondhand smoke causing heart disease. It just gives us a few more reasons for those of us who don't smoke to keep the public air smoke free.

Fact Sheet
Secondhand Smoke Causes Heart Disease
(May 2007)
• Secondhand smoke exposure has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease.1
o Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause from 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among nonsmokers.2
o Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25–30%.1
• Breathing secondhand smoke can have immediate adverse effects on your blood and blood vessels, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.1
o Breathing secondhand smoke interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
o For some of these negative effects, the immediate impact of even short exposures to secondhand smoke appears to be almost as large as that observed in active smokers.
o Even a short time in a smoky room can cause your blood platelets to become stickier.
o Even brief secondhand smoke exposure can damage the lining of blood vessels.
o Short exposures to secondhand smoke can decrease coronary flow velocity reserves to levels observed in smokers and reduce heart rate variability.
o Adults who breathe 5 hours of secondhand smoke daily have higher levels of the “bad” cholesterol that can clog the arteries of the heart.
• Coronary heart disease is the single leading cause of death in the United States. In 2003, an estimated 1.2 million Americans had a coronary attack.3 Many Americans have heart disease without knowing it.4
• Persons who already have heart disease are at especially high risk of suffering adverse effects from breathing secondhand smoke, and should take special precautions to avoid even brief exposures.1
o Secondhand smoke exposure can also make a heart attack more severe than it would have been in the absence of exposure.1
References
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [cited 2006 Oct 23]. Available from: 2006 Surgeon General's Report: Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke | OSH | CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm)
2. California Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant . Sacramento, California: California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2005 [cited 2006 Oct 23].
3. American Heart Association. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2006 Update . Dallas, Texas: American Heart Association, 2006 [cited 2006 Oct 23].
4. Myerburg RJ, Interian, Jr. A, Mitrani RM, Kessler KM, Castellanos A. Frequency of Sudden Cardiac Death and Profiles of Risk. American Journal of Cardiology. 1997;80(5B):10F-19F [cited 2006 Oct 23].
For Further Information
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Office on Smoking and Health
E-mail: tobaccoinfo@cdc.gov
Phone: 1-800-CDC-INFO

Nah, they wouldn't have anything like meat tenderizer, or preservatives, or ash from the cooking process, or growth hormones from the beef, or detergent residue on the plate from the last time it was washed....

Sorry, Metro, but you can't escape "chemicals."

-sd


Good point Dave, I should have said, the preservatives and growth hormones haven't been documented (nor probably do in common sense) to show health problems in second hand "smellers of fajitas". As far as your other rebuttal, good post, I can agree with you on principle.

I respect the arguments on the other side of this issue, as it's hardly clear cut.

However, I'm glad to see the state being proactive on this issue as I believe most people will see this as an improvement in the general quality of life and demonstrates OK is starting to be a bit more progressive.

And from a purely selfish standpoint, the change will make my visits much more enjoyable.

just make smoking illegal and quit playing games. thats what i say if the government is going to keep intruding on our lives. soon they'll tell we cant smoke where we live.
hey pete, didnt they pass that in some california cities?
look, i just want to know when we the people will quit bending over while we let the government take more of our rights away. its a little facist having the government tell us what is best for us, and there are way to many people that love to go along with it.

just make smoking illegal and quit playing games. thats what i say if the government is going to keep intruding on our lives. soon they'll tell we cant smoke where we live.
hey pete, didnt they pass that in some california cities?
look, i just want to know when we the people will quit bending over while we let the government take more of our rights away. its a little facist having the government tell us what is best for us, and there are way to many people that love to go along with it.


That would be nice, but it will never happen. The state makes a TON of money on the taxes from smokes. The money has to come from somewhere...