My brief stay in Texas (five years) taught me that Texas does do some things right.

Oklahoma plays the mother hen role too often and with good intentions; however, I like what that do in Texas.

They keep the bars and clubs open after closing and serve juices and sodas. Many of the clubs in Texas close at 3:00 a.m. and from that period on they put aside the alchol and serve non alcholic beverages to help sober people up so as not to release all of them out on the roads at the same time. I prefer the 2:00 a.m. closing--people need to be able to get at least a few hours sleep before they go to work.

Can we influence Mother Hen to shake this tail-feather?

What are your thoughts?

There's no law that prevents a club or bar from stayin open that late. Its in the hands of the owners. Some clubs and bars stay open later than 2 but its usually on the weekends.

But I thought all clubs and bars that serve alcohol have to close at 2 am every day. Or at least stop serving alcohol then. Oklahoma's laws against alcohol need to be better known.

I think there's a ordinance that is in play.
The Paseo bars are examined by cops, and they're sending folks home AT 2am.
No doubt to ticket people for dui and arresting and impounding vehicles.
I think they should served non alcoholic drinks after 12am, personally.
And what lush stays out on a work night that late..lol

Oh, yeah, local ordnances can come into play. In Stillwater, for instance, bars aren't even allowed to open on Sunday.

I think it's wrong. You can be as drunk at 2 a.m. as at 4 a.m. In fact, it's possible people wind their drinking down around 2 and are more likely to be sober at 4. If people want to stay up until 4, and the bars want to stay open, I think they should be allowed to do so and think we're too busy policing morality with laws like that. Governments need to be in the business of governing and stay away from silly laws like this.

Yea because drinking at 2am or 4am, doesnt contribute to drunk driving.




DA

Drinking at any time of the day contributes to drunk driving. Alcohol being legal contributes to drunk driving. We tried to stop that and it didn't work. Legislating morality doesn't work. At least at 4 a.m. you don't have as many people out on the streets going home from the movies or other social events that are put at risk by having drunk drivers on the street.

Drinking at any time of the day contributes to drunk driving. Alcohol being legal contributes to drunk driving. We tried to stop that and it didn't work. Legislating morality doesn't work. At least at 4 a.m. you don't have as many people out on the streets going home from the movies or other social events that are put at risk by having drunk drivers on the street.
There was a motorcycle rider killed a half mile from my house last week, running into a car he was following that slowed down to turn left...it was 4:45 on a Tuesday afternoon. Of course, if the rider didn't have a .24 BAC then he might have been able to assess the situation and take proper action.

IIRC it is an OKC Beer Ordinance that requires 2am closing. The ABLE Commision rules allow an establishment to stay open HOWEVER all liquor must be locked up and no liquor service after 2am period.

At least that is the understanding I have from an ABLE Comissioner.

IIRC it is an OKC Beer Ordinance that requires 2am closing. The ABLE Commision rules allow an establishment to stay open HOWEVER all liquor must be locked up and no liquor service after 2am period.

At least that is the understanding I have from an ABLE Comissioner.


Actually I believe thats incorrect. This is what I have heard

You cannot have any liquor/beer out past 2 AM or you are not in compliance. You can be fined for each bottle or drink thats available past 2 AM.

All they have to find is one bottle or drink available for you to be out of compliance. The amount just jacks up the fine.

So its easier to close the bar before 2 AM and do your clean up then. Can you imagine trying to clear your entire bar of drinks before 2 am? And all the drunks that would fight you for their drinks?

This is my understanding of it. I am not 100% correct but thats how I have heard it.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but from past experience (im 28 now) nothing good ever comes from drinking past 2am. If you haven't found what you were looking for by 2am; then you'll regret what ever you find after that hour.

I base this off of 8 years of college....

Maybe I'm just getting old, but from past experience (im 28 now) nothing good ever comes from drinking past 2am. If you haven't found what you were looking for by 2am; then you'll regret what ever you find after that hour.

I base this off of 8 years of college....

Thats because thats cut off time. If someone wanted a good bender and lets say they closed the bars at midnight, that person would just go 2 hours earlier.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but from past experience (im 28 now) nothing good ever comes from drinking past 2am. If you haven't found what you were looking for by 2am; then you'll regret what ever you find after that hour.

I base this off of 8 years of college....

lol

Ahh to be 28 again

Ahh to be 28 again

I've turned 28 twice already and the first time was a lot better. lol

We're gonna be lucky if the state doesn't ban smoking from all public places in 2013. If that happens, we won't have to worry much about bars.

Like what do you mean? Bars will go out of business? So, not a high percentage of people smoke in bars as it is now.

Plenty of places ban public smoking and bars are still going strong. I think we will always have saloons and cat houses. :omg:

We're gonna be lucky if the state doesn't ban smoking from all public places in 2013. If that happens, we won't have to worry much about bars.

I beg to differ. I bet you will find that bar business's experience an increase in business.

As a cigar afficianodo, I am not in favor of a ban on smoking in public places. My favorite places are cigar friendly. And quite frankly I don't care whether or not anyone else is offended by it. When you go to a bar, you expect to have to smell smoke. Personally I hate the smell of cigarrettes, but I don't care about it so much when I go out.

I'm tired of the "pleasure police" and beta males and others who probably don't even frequent bars and other establishments where smoking is a permitted privilege but would deny others of the same. It's one thing if you're in an airplane, office building, in the company of children or in a restaurant where people are eating. But bars and other public places? Come on!

And I think there are a lot of bar owners in NYC and Chicago that will beg to differ with you about business going up.

So its easier to close the bar before 2 AM and do your clean up then. Can you imagine trying to clear your entire bar of drinks before 2 am? And all the drunks that would fight you for their drinks?

This is my understanding of it. I am not 100% correct but thats how I have heard it.

From personal experience several years ago a club's lawyers figured out that if they turned in their city beer license and satisfied the ABLE Commision that they had locked up the liquor they could and did stay open until 4am or later. This went on for a couple of years. The club was The Lexus Club at NE 36th/Springlake Dr.

The club eventually went out of business and was unable to reopen since a church moved in across the street. The church has subsequently moved. Once a certain club opened in Bricktown the Lexus Club lost its clientele.

As a cigar afficianodo, I am not in favor of a ban on smoking in public places. My favorite places are cigar friendly. And quite frankly I don't care whether or not anyone else is offended by it. When you go to a bar, you expect to have to smell smoke. Personally I hate the smell of cigarrettes, but I don't care about it so much when I go out. ...

But should you expect it? The same used to be said for the work place, eating places, bingo halls, casinos etc. Slowly people are coming around that the "breathe easy" isn't such a bad thing. I know that Casinos still have smoking but most aren't the smoke filled rooms of yesterday. Strangely the Vegas ones have banned one of the least offense smoking choices but kept the others (many Casinos have non-smoking areas but just as was tried with eating places, sometimes the areas aren't separated and you have crossover. That can depend heavily on the air exchange system too. If a particular establishment wants to keep it, ok. The fear of most businesses was if they banned smoking was that they would lose tons of business. Once most businesses were forced to go smoke free (there were some exceptions built in). It was a level playing field and business either didn't drop or actually increased.

Not generally in favor of government intrusion in private behavior except when that behavior is in the public realm. Then a certain government responsibility might exist. In the privacy of your home or a private (member only) type of business, that is another matter entirely.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree. Bars are not public places. They are private businesses and have the right to serve what is lawful. This is not the place for the government. And as for your question as to whether or not you can expect to be exposed to smoke in such places - the answer is unequivocably YES. And another thing - if you don't want to smell smoke in a bar, you have the right to choose not to go to that bar.

If you're against smoking in bars, yet the bar owner permits and even profits by it by selling cigars and cigarrettes, then who are you to suggest to him that he shouldn't do it simply because you're offended by it? He's taken his risk, his shot at something. And along comes these people who have the choice not to frequent his establishment and tell him how to do business!

This is exactly the same argument that people make when they don't want to listen to a particularly annoying radio personality or watch a TV program that is offensive to them. They want to ban the program rather than do the simple thing and choose not to listen or watch it.


This topic really angers me! Can you tell?

I'm gonna respectfully disagree. Bars are not public places. They are private businesses and have the right to serve what is lawful. This is not the place for the government. And as for your question as to whether or not you can expect to be exposed to smoke in such places - the answer is unequivocably YES. And another thing - if you don't want to smell smoke in a bar, you have the right to choose not to go to that bar.

If you're against smoking in bars, yet the bar owner permits and even profits by it by selling cigars and cigarrettes, then who are you to suggest to him that he shouldn't do it simply because you're offended by it? He's taken his risk, his shot at something. And along comes these people who have the choice not to frequent his establishment and tell him how to do business!


A reason why California banned smoking in bars was because some workers in such establishments were getting cancer believed caused from being around second hand smoke 8 hours a day. So I guess you would say, if you're afraid of getting cancer from cigarette smoke, then don't work where's there's smoke like that.

You have the right to choose where you work, if you want to take the risk of working where you could have a side effect, then no one should stop you or others from taking that risk. Same thing for many jobs, there is the the potential to die, you accept that risk by taking the paycheck and doing the work.

Then why didn't the state of California think so when it banned smoking in bars?

One word, the government of California (and many other states) thinks it needs to decide what is best for people, instead of letting people decide for themselves. Personal responsibility.

As a cigar afficianodo, I am not in favor of a ban on smoking in public places. My favorite places are cigar friendly. And quite frankly I don't care whether or not anyone else is offended by it. When you go to a bar, you expect to have to smell smoke. Personally I hate the smell of cigarrettes, but I don't care about it so much when I go out.

I'm tired of the "pleasure police" and beta males and others who probably don't even frequent bars and other establishments where smoking is a permitted privilege but would deny others of the same. It's one thing if you're in an airplane, office building, in the company of children or in a restaurant where people are eating. But bars and other public places? Come on!

And I think there are a lot of bar owners in NYC and Chicago that will beg to differ with you about business going up.

That's why they don't go, because smoking is permitted.

This is not a black and white issue. Yet. I am a smoker, and HUGE believer in personal responsibility. However, an employer is obligated to provide a safe work place for their employees. And I'm sure most of us are protected by employer provided safeguards against injury that we take for granted as a matter of course. If we are thinking people and work in OSHA compliant workplaces, we likely couldn't imagine going without these protections. So, I'm thinking that this has in some places and ultimately will across the nation come down to a matter of classification of second hand smoke as a hazardous substance.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree. Bars are not public places. They are private businesses and have the right to serve what is lawful. This is not the place for the government. And as for your question as to whether or not you can expect to be exposed to smoke in such places - the answer is unequivocably YES. And another thing - if you don't want to smell smoke in a bar, you have the right to choose not to go to that bar.

If you're against smoking in bars, yet the bar owner permits and even profits by it by selling cigars and cigarrettes, then who are you to suggest to him that he shouldn't do it simply because you're offended by it? He's taken his risk, his shot at something. And along comes these people who have the choice not to frequent his establishment and tell him how to do business!

This is exactly the same argument that people make when they don't want to listen to a particularly annoying radio personality or watch a TV program that is offensive to them. They want to ban the program rather than do the simple thing and choose not to listen or watch it.

This topic really angers me! Can you tell?

Are you serious, this is part of your argument against outlawing smoking in bars. I read several medical articles and magizines, I've yet to find anyone that reported a death that resulted from second hand radio listening or TV watching.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree. Bars are not public places. They are private businesses and have the right to serve what is lawful. This is not the place for the government. And as for your question as to whether or not you can expect to be exposed to smoke in such places - the answer is unequivocably YES. And another thing - if you don't want to smell smoke in a bar, you have the right to choose not to go to that bar.

If you're against smoking in bars, yet the bar owner permits and even profits by it by selling cigars and cigarrettes, then who are you to suggest to him that he shouldn't do it simply because you're offended by it? He's taken his risk, his shot at something. And along comes these people who have the choice not to frequent his establishment and tell him how to do business!

This is exactly the same argument that people make when they don't want to listen to a particularly annoying radio personality or watch a TV program that is offensive to them. They want to ban the program rather than do the simple thing and choose not to listen or watch it.


This topic really angers me! Can you tell?

I understand what you are saying but they are public places in the since that the public is openly invited to patronize the establishment (they are not a private, "members only" type of club). I agree they have a limited right to sell what is lawful (but they are trying to change the law, make it unlawful, then that "right" goes away). They might even still be able to sell the product but the product can't be used on the premises. Not that much different than being able to buy beer etc at the grocery store. But you aren't allowed to pop the top and drink it there. You can by alcohol at bars but aren't allowed to leave the premises with it.

I can see both sides. I am a non-smoker but both of my parents smoke and even they frequent places that have gone smoke free. At first they chose to go to places that had the specially ventilated smoking rooms but found they missed the other places. No one is banning them from smoking. They can still smoke in their car on the way to/from the restaurant. They can chain smoke to their hearts content (not withstanding the health issues, so that may be a bad choice of words) in their home. There is a right time and place for just about any "adult" behavior.

Are you serious, this is part of your argument against outlawing smoking in bars. I read several medical articles and magizines, I've yet to find anyone that reported a death that resulted from second hand radio listening or TV watching.

Maybe you never watched "The Bachelor". LOL

Hmmm, didn't President Clinton make that connection more than once (and even recently)? Course that may have been 1st hand and not 2nd hand.

if you can ban smoking in bars in North Carolina - the land that tobacco built, there's no place that will be immune from the "no smoke" crowd.

I can't stand smoke - hate being around it and smelling like it, but i choose to go places where smoking occurs. I could just as easily choose to avoid those places. Life is really simple that way, but for whatever stupid reason we now have this idea that if we don't like something then others shouldnt be allowed to do it either.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree. Bars are not public places. They are private businesses and have the right to serve what is lawful. This is not the place for the government. And as for your question as to whether or not you can expect to be exposed to smoke in such places - the answer is unequivocably YES. And another thing - if you don't want to smell smoke in a bar, you have the right to choose not to go to that bar.

If you're against smoking in bars, yet the bar owner permits and even profits by it by selling cigars and cigarrettes, then who are you to suggest to him that he shouldn't do it simply because you're offended by it? He's taken his risk, his shot at something. And along comes these people who have the choice not to frequent his establishment and tell him how to do business!

This is exactly the same argument that people make when they don't want to listen to a particularly annoying radio personality or watch a TV program that is offensive to them. They want to ban the program rather than do the simple thing and choose not to listen or watch it.


This topic really angers me! Can you tell? Agreed...

It's my experience that most bars set their clocks forward and they WANT to get out of there early. Rarely is a bar actually open at 1:59am. At least the ones I frequent.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree. Bars are not public places. They are private businesses and have the right to serve what is lawful. This is not the place for the government. And as for your question as to whether or not you can expect to be exposed to smoke in such places - the answer is unequivocably YES. And another thing - if you don't want to smell smoke in a bar, you have the right to choose not to go to that bar.

If you're against smoking in bars, yet the bar owner permits and even profits by it by selling cigars and cigarrettes, then who are you to suggest to him that he shouldn't do it simply because you're offended by it? He's taken his risk, his shot at something. And along comes these people who have the choice not to frequent his establishment and tell him how to do business!

This is exactly the same argument that people make when they don't want to listen to a particularly annoying radio personality or watch a TV program that is offensive to them. They want to ban the program rather than do the simple thing and choose not to listen or watch it.


This topic really angers me! Can you tell?

This angers me too. You are slowly killing yourself and don't care that you're killing other people too. I bet you're obese.

You have the right to choose where you work, if you want to take the risk of working where you could have a side effect, then no one should stop you or others from taking that risk. Same thing for many jobs, there is the the potential to die, you accept that risk by taking the paycheck and doing the work.

THANK YOU! It's all about choices. You don't like it? Who do you think you are to tell other people they can't engage in smoking or sales of smoking products? You have the choice not to go in that establishment, whether it is to patronize or work for that establishment.

Who are you or the government to tell private entrepreneurs and their patrons what they can and can't do? Don't we have enough government intruding in our business and personal lives already?

Oh BTW..I know this topic got hijacked. Originally it was about bars closing at 2am which is way too early! I'm from Florida where the bars close at 4am. and you can smoke. :woowoo:

It's been years since I've kept those kinds of hours but in Denver they have a large Bricktown type of area called LODO. The bar owners banded together to try to get the 2AM curfew removed because they were finding that patrons were drinking like fish the last 1/2 hour and then all being pushed out on common streets at 2AM. They were finding, and the police concurred, that numerous fights were ensuing, public stuff happened because bathrooms couldn't be found, vandlism increased and other crimes were happening preying on drunks stumbling around trying to find their ways home. I'm not sure if they removed the curfew, but I know the city was giving it serious consideration because of what was essentially dumping of drunk people on the street in large numbers on weekends.

i saw bad company at the button south in hallandale, fl in the mid 90s. the singer (brian howe?) thought it was cool that the club didn't close till 8am.