Oh...and the argument that you(the employee) assume the risk before you work is bunk. We all need to work and pay bills. But to tell people who make good money doing their jobs in a toxic environment is a cost of doing business is just wrong. We're all just trying to survive, and gigs in the smoking bars, whether you smoke or not. Are often the most lucrative. Its already a lifestyle sacrifice, losing night, weekends, and holidays. Why should it be a health sacrifice also?

You completely missed my point. I have no problem with a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. My beef is with a 100% ban that doesn't allow for cigar lounges. For example: Montana doesn't allow for any cigar lounges (whether they sale alcohol or not) at all. RI though allows for cigar lounges as long as 50% of the sales comes from tobacco product. These are specific business models. These are places that cater to a certain population and create jobs as well. What happened to Fedora? What about the current employees of the designated cigar lounges we have now that will be forced to reduce staff or close? (These employees make regular retail wages and no tips so not like they are being forced to work here by the lucrative pay. One is a police officer that can make more doing part time security work but does this because he enjoys it) There should be exceptions that allow for specific designated and regulated business models.

No one has a right to a job of their choice. Your argument would carry more weight if all the bars in OKC were smoking bars but there are plenty of non smoking bars with lucrative jobs available. Were people clamoring for jobs at Makers when it was open? No one forces anyone to work in an environment that don't like.

For the record, I don't smoke cigarettes and hate smoky bars myself but I do enjoy a good cigar occasionally shared with friends in an appropriate environment. I don't want to go into your bar and smoke a cigar but don't want you coming into my cigar lounge telling me I can't smoke my cigar. I have my place...you have yours.

I am curious...what bars/restaurant bars are you allowed to smoke in in OKC these days? I don't go out much anymore and when I do it is to the same places.


Smoking

Wsky


Non smoking

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


Patio only

Ednas ?
The Ranch
HalfTime

OkieTonk - smoking

Doesn't Buffalo Wild Wings have a smoking side? Does Hooters allow smoking?

I personally think if you want to allow smoking specific places - in light of all the knowledge of the medical conditions smoking can cause - I say "Go for it." But the employees and owners IMO should all have to waive their right go any gov't assistance should their willful neglect lead to health problems in the future resulting in medical care the gov't might otherwise have to subsidize.

But, Im' one of those nuts that thinks if you're going to willfully be obese I shouldn't have to pay for that either.

These are in addition to those already listed...

Smoking:

Blue Note
Cock o' the Walk
Cookies
Cousins
Bar at Mickey Mantle's (not dining room - separate ventilation)
JJ's
TapWerks second floor
Red Rooster

Patio smoking allowed (or even welcomed):
Powerhouse
Guyutes
The Pump (smoking portion separate from other outdoor area, though you must walk through it to use restrooms)
Captain Norm's
Skinny Slim's
R&J Lounge and Supper Club
O Bar
Louie's Midtown
Deep Duece Grill
Fassler Hall

Non-smoking:
Too many places to list. Literally hundreds in central OKC alone.

The current Oklahoma law is that you can allow smoking in one of these two circumstances: 1) No one under 21 is allowed; or 2) a space is completely separated with specific ventilation requirements (such as the bars at BWW on NW Ex and Mickey Mantle's) and no one under 21 is allowed.

It really isn't different because no one is forcing them to work there. There are jobs that are hazardous to people besides working in a cigar lounge. People assume those risks upfront when taking the job there. There are plenty of jobs in the hospitality business that people that are offended by nudity or smoke don't have to work at either. I will add that it is almost a prereq to working in a cigar lounge that you smoke cigars that way you are able to discuss the different sticks and offer guidance. I will reiterate that I have no problem with a general smoking ban for mixed use places where smoking is not the primary business but there should be exceptions in the law to allow for specified business models relating to smoking to still operate with regulations. (age to get in, certain percentage of sales must be tobacco related to qualify, ventilation systems, etc).

ALL workplaces are protected against second-hand smoke, and for good reason. Why should bars and restaurants or certain stores like cigar bars be accepted? Most states and countries still have cigar stores without allowing people to smoke in them.

And as for other hazardous jobs, they are highly, highly regulated. The whole purpose of OSHA and the strict laws they enforce is to provide a safe and healthy working environment to ALL.

This is not about customers it's about employees. And there is no other type of job (please name one) where the government simply lets employers operate a working environment with such incredibly bad impact on your health.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with being 'offended' by nudity or anything else. There are no laws saying an employer must not operate a business that offends employees. Completely different issue and not comparable at all.

Regarding Maker's (R.I.P), I am close friends with many of the former staff and in fact even dated a girl who cocktailed there (as a second job). Nearly all of them were cigar smokers or at least very knowledgeable about them, and specifically sought out work there, because the compensation was exceptional. Not only did cigars drive ticket prices (which in turn drives tips), a cigar bar attracts more affluent patrons (which also supports higher per-cover).

The servers and bartenders at Mickey Mantle's feel much the same way. That said, as more and more places become non-smoking it drives cigarette smokers into cigar-friendly establishments and ruins the environment for others, including even cigar smokers who for the most part would rather not hang out in a cloud of cigarette smoke. Double standard, I suppose.

That said, cigar smoking is a different animal. I really do think that should the law change there should be an allowance made for cigar-specific places. If I owned one, I would probably already have banned cigarettes and made them cigar-only. But then again, no way I would open a cigar-oriented place these days. Many anti-smoking advocates don't see a difference in the two things and are all too eager to throw out the baby with the bath water. I suspect cigar places are doomed, regrettably.

ALL workplaces are protected against second-hand smoke, and for good reason. Why should bars and restaurants or certain stores like cigar bars be accepted? Most states and countries still have cigar stores without allowing people to smoke in them.

And as for other hazardous jobs, they are highly, highly regulated. The whole purpose of OSHA and the strict laws they enforce is to provide a safe and healthy working environment to ALL.

This is not about customers it's about employees. And there is no other type of job (please name one) where the government simply lets employers operate a working environment with such incredibly bad impact on your health.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with being 'offended' by nudity or anything else. There are no laws saying an employer must not operate a business that offends employees. Completely different issue and not comparable at all.

Found one just to be a smart ass this morning:

TollBooth worker
Being a tollbooth operator is dangerous? Hell, yes. You won?t see these workers on any other list of dangerous occupations, but think about this scenario: As part of a paid experiment, you?re asked to have your breathing supply directly connected to a car?s exhaust pipe. A company wants to find out if this will increase the likelihood that you?ll get various illnesses like cancer, emphysema and respiratory problems. The test time is one week, but the company warns you: It?s a very risky experiment?you may well contract these maladies and more.

Would you voluntarily do it? We wouldn?t. So what?s the connection? Tollbooth operators are not hooked up to an exhaust pipe of a car, but what they do is pretty damn close. The majority of the air in their booth is exhaust from cars. Or worse, it?s diesel exhaust from trucks. Every time a vehicle pulls out, a trail of noxious, carcinogenic smoke is left behind. Invariably, a portion of it goes into their lungs. Can you imagine the air quality in and around those tollbooths, where their heads reside? Don?t try to. Tollbooth operators spend all day trapped in a little box, breathing in fumes from the huffing and puffing of surrounding vehicles. Given enough years of this, they?ll be huffing and puffing trying to get air into their own systems. No job?not even a traffic cop?s or gas station attendant?s workplace?is exposed to as many automotive exhaust fumes, and ultimately, as many carcinogens, as a toll-booth operator. Bottom line: This is no week-long experiment. This is your life. Sorry, Doubting Thomases?this job is dangerous.

Danger Factor: You?re sucking in carcinogens.
Pay Scale: It?s a living, no more.
Perks: None.
Profile: Regular people trying to get by.

source:Player's 25 Most Dangerous Jobs in AmericaSome jobs can kill. Over time is tough and malfunctioning office equipment is a pain. Inept coworkers slow everything down. These things wear on a person, but they won?t kill anyone. (http://www.cardozaplayer.com/article_details.php?cid=40&contentType=1&)

Absolutely no evidence cigar second-hand smoke is less harmful than cigarettes, which is why every single smoking ban stipulates ALL smoke, such as pipes, cigarettes and cigars.

You guys want to smoke a cigar in a bar. Great. But that's not at all a good reason to allow it.

If it's at all logical to ban smoking in workplaces, it makes no sense to start adding exceptions due to personal preferences.

You could make the argument that some employees seek out places that allow smoking in all types of industries but that doesn't mean it should be allowed. OSHA doesn't let those who would rather not follow workplace health and safety laws just ignore them; strong penalties and consequences for employers who allow this.


Having said all that, the Oklahoma law is likely to except cigar stores and outdoor patios. But that's just another finger in the dike and those will all go away eventually too, as has already happened in many other places.

OSHA doesn't let those who would rather not follow workplace health and safety laws just ignore them; strong penalties and consequences for employers who allow this.
.

I don't believe that OSHA prohibits second hand smoke. Interesting article here:

The Case Against Smoking Bans - OSHA (http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/OSHA.html)

Even though we disagree on cigar lounges, I still think that smoking shouldn't be allowed in bars and restaurants.

Just using OSHA as an example of the importance of the rights of all employees for a healthy and safe workplace.

For political reasons smoking laws are regulated generally at the state level, which is why our in Oklahoma are so completely backward.

If OSHA was allowed to deal with this issue, it would have been settled nationwide decades ago, just like the systematic elimination of other unhealthy workplace practices.

Is vapor included in this?

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

The Hidden Dangers of Grilling | The Oz Blog (http://blog.doctoroz.com/oz-experts/the-hidden-dangers-of-grilling)


Grilling Danger #2: Smoke
Barbecue smoke contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxic chemicals that can damage your lungs. As meat cooks, drippings of fat hit the coals and create PAHs, which waft into the air. If you are a grill chef who loves to stand over the barbeque, you are inhaling these toxins. The smoky smell on your clothes and in your hair is also coating the inside of your lungs. The more your grill smokes, the more PAH is generated. The toxins are absorbed along with that delicious smoky flavor right into your food.

Body shops should be closed too, for the sake of the people who have to work there: Health Hazards in the Auto Body Shop Industry | Chron.com (http://work.chron.com/health-hazards-auto-body-shop-industry-11938.html)

Iron workers, crab fishermen, oilfield workers, climbing guides, rafting guides, parachute instructors, police officers, medical professionals,... ...ALL of these people assume dramatically greater personal risk thanks to their choice of employment. And in general they are more highly compensated for doing so.

Workers in concert venues risk permanent hearing loss. Factory workers deal with the potential for crippling repetitive motion injury. We are not all guaranteed risk-free workplaces; only that the risks be understood, disclosed and mitigated as much as possible.

Personally, I hate most smoking places, and especially dislike cigarette smoke. But Pete, you are letting your own dislike for smoking influence your opinion about whether or not people should be allowed to partake in it. As of now it remains a legal activity. Perhaps it should be outlawed altogether, but as long as it is legal I don't have a problem with a specialized, regulated place for it.

I understand your workplace argument, but it becomes less and less valid as the market tilts overwhelmingly in favor of non-smoking. As many, many other non-smoking workplace options become available in the same industry, it becomes more and more likely that if someone works in a smoking place it is because they CHOOSE to do so.

Two of three Old Chicago bars have recently gone smoke free, but the one in Midwest City still allows smoking. It's where I plan on going to get my occasional "fix" to satisfy my smoking habit (I quit December 29th, 1999).
C. T.

I personally think if you want to allow smoking specific places - in light of all the knowledge of the medical conditions smoking can cause - I say "Go for it." But the employees and owners IMO should all have to waive their right go any gov't assistance should their willful neglect lead to health problems in the future resulting in medical care the gov't might otherwise have to subsidize.

But, Im' one of those nuts that thinks if you're going to willfully be obese I shouldn't have to pay for that either.

BBates,
Just curious, do you consider Medicare "gov't assistance"? It is after all, something we pay for and when they were taking money out of my paycheck, there were no conditions then. I do understand your concern and my company's health package (life and health insurance) were higher because I was a smoker.
C. T.
p.s. By the way, if you do consider Medicare "gov't assistance", fine, I'm not looking for an argument, just wanting to know your thoughts.

BBates,
Just curious, do you consider Medicare "gov't assistance"? It is after all, something we pay for and when they were taking money out of my paycheck, there were no conditions then. I do understand your concern and my company's health package (life and health insurance) were higher because I was a smoker.
C. T.
p.s. By the way, if you do consider Medicare "gov't assistance", fine, I'm not looking for an argument, just wanting to know your thoughts.

No idea why you'd think I consider Medicare 'gov't assistance' (as in welfare-ish). Its an insurance program that qualifying people have paid into.

Do i think people who do not take care of themselves (smoking, obesity without underlying direct contributors, etc.) should by a higher share into the system - yes.

No idea why you'd think I consider Medicare 'gov't assistance' (as in welfare-ish). Its an insurance program that qualifying people have paid into.

Do i think people who do not take care of themselves (smoking, obesity without underlying direct contributors, etc.) should by a higher share into the system - yes.

BBates,
I just wasn't sure what you meant by government assistance. I know people that think Medicare (and Social Security) is government assistance.
C. T.

No idea why you'd think I consider Medicare 'gov't assistance' (as in welfare-ish). Its an insurance program that qualifying people have paid into.

Do i think people who do not take care of themselves (smoking, obesity without underlying direct contributors, etc.) should by a higher share into the system - yes.

Would this include drinkers, diabetics who continue to eat poorly, people who sky dive, people who don't wear seatbelts, people that don't wear helmets. What abut people who participate in risky sex behaviors? How would we regulate or how would we determine if their fault (didn't use condom versus condom breaking, wasn't told the other person had a std, etc) Just curious how far we take it? What year would we use to start? Do we include prior smokers like my mother who is 73 and has copd now but quit smoking years ago when we started to realize the dangers? What about people who eat a lot of grilled and smoke meats that develop cancer from the increased carcinogens? May seem kind of extreme but the point is who decides and where do we draw line? Seems like a very slippery slope.

Would this include drinkers, diabetics who continue to eat poorly, people who sky dive, people who don't wear seatbelts, people that don't wear helmets. What abut people who participate in risky sex behaviors? How would we regulate or how would we determine if their fault (didn't use condom versus condom breaking, wasn't told the other person had a std, etc) Just curious how far we take it? What year would we use to start? Do we include prior smokers like my mother who is 73 and has copd now but quit smoking years ago when we started to realize the dangers? What about people who eat a lot of grilled and smoke meats that develop cancer from the increased carcinogens? May seem kind of extreme but the point is who decides and where do we draw line? Seems like a very slippery slope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would this include drinkers, diabetics who continue to eat poorly, people who sky dive, people who don't wear seatbelts, people that don't wear helmets. What abut people who participate in risky sex behaviors? How would we regulate or how would we determine if their fault (didn't use condom versus condom breaking, wasn't told the other person had a std, etc) Just curious how far we take it? What year would we use to start? Do we include prior smokers like my mother who is 73 and has copd now but quit smoking years ago when we started to realize the dangers? What about people who eat a lot of grilled and smoke meats that develop cancer from the increased carcinogens? May seem kind of extreme but the point is who decides and where do we draw line? Seems like a very slippery slope. This is off sight. The previous poster talked about purposefully working in a hazardous environment to make the most money so that they could to enjoy a life vs. having an even playingfield. You're talking about gluttony, perversion, and hedonism. Shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to earn a living without purposefully poisoning themselves?

I am curious...what bars/restaurant bars are you allowed to smoke in in OKC these days? I don't go out much anymore and when I do it is to the same places.

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

Wsky


Non smoking

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


Patio only

Ednas ?
The Ranch
HalfTime

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

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

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

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

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

Shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to earn a living without purposefully poisoning themselves?They do. Give me one single instance where someone's only choice would be to subject themselves to second smoke without having a second option not to?

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No idea why you'd think I consider Medicare 'gov't assistance' (as in welfare-ish). Its an insurance program that qualifying people have paid into.
Do i think people who do not take care of themselves (smoking, obesity without underlying direct contributors, etc.) should by a higher share into the system - yes. "

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





|

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

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

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

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

The Hidden Dangers of Grilling | The Oz Blog (http://blog.doctoroz.com/oz-experts/the-hidden-dangers-of-grilling)

Body shops should be closed too, for the sake of the people who have to work there: Health Hazards in the Auto Body Shop Industry | Chron.com (http://work.chron.com/health-hazards-auto-body-shop-industry-11938.html)

Iron workers, crab fishermen, oilfield workers, climbing guides, rafting guides, parachute instructors, police officers, medical professionals,... ...ALL of these people assume dramatically greater personal risk thanks to their choice of employment. And in general they are more highly compensated for doing so.

Workers in concert venues risk permanent hearing loss. Factory workers deal with the potential for crippling repetitive motion injury. We are not all guaranteed risk-free workplaces; only that the risks be understood, disclosed and mitigated as much as possible.



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I am curious...what bars/restaurant bars are you allowed to smoke in in OKC these days? I don't go out much anymore and when I do it is to the same places.


Smoking

Wsky


Non smoking

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


Patio only

Ednas ?
The Ranch
HalfTime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except we've already discussed over and over again why things aren't nearly this simple.I just simply disagree with that then. In this case, it is that simple.

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

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

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

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

Except I think it is that simple.

I haven't come home from an OKC bar smelling like smoke in 2 years. I don't patronize bars that allow smoking indoors, nothing personal against those business I just don't want to smell like smoke.

As a republican with libertarian leanings, I see no need for the government to step in here. The market is doing it's job. Ask Sipango

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

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

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

Except I think it is that simple.

I haven't come home from an OKC bar smelling like smoke in 2 years. I don't patronize bars that allow smoking indoors, nothing personal against those business I just don't want to smell like smoke.

As a republican with libertarian leanings, I see no need for the government to step in here. The market is doing it's job. Ask Sipango

Only simple when you want to view things in an over simplistic fashion to fit into some crazy broad political stance that doesn't require educating yourself or critical thought.


One of the biggest things is to have some impact on young people starting to smoke, starting a lifetime of addiction, then becoming a drag on our insurance and government supported healthcare programs, which we all pay for. Disproportionally, people who smoke are poorer than average and thus less likely to pay for their own health care. How does that fit into your political views?


There are still hundreds of places where people can smoke indoors in OKC and thousands throughout the state. You can name one that switched voluntarily and the only reason you know their business has gone up is because I reported it after running into the owner at a bar. So, to claim this is common knowledge in the bar industry is silly.

We can think of one that switched voluntarily; new places are generally opening as non-smoking because they know the law is going to change. They are all part of the Oklahoma Restaurant Association and that's how I knew about the forth-coming changes myself, and was the whole reason I started this thread.

Even WSKY -- with cigars as a core part of their business -- was built out a couple of years ago with the idea of converting to non-smoking because they know the laws will change, as they already have just about everywhere else.


This matter has already been researched to death and dozens of states and countries have already gone down the path we will too, just typically very late while the entire health of our state suffers.

One of the biggest things is to have some impact on young people starting to smoke, starting a lifetime of addiction, then becoming a drag on our insurance and government supported healthcare programs, which we all pay for. Disproportionally, people who smoke are poorer than average and thus less likely to pay for their own health care. How does that fit into your political views?

This was one of the things that really surprised me back in college when I waited tables (around '99 and a little after). I come from an upper-middle class background, and I was well educated in how harmful smoking is and how much it's a "not even once, and definitely not twice" sort of thing. And then I waited tables and was floored by the number of people my age who smoked, nearly every single co-worker at several different restaurants. From my perspective, I could not understand how anyone my age would be smoking when the risks have been so thoroughly documented and the public so thoroughly informed.

For related reasons, I am very happy with how the smoking laws in this state have changed. It's easy to say "don't work there if you don't want to breathe in the smoke", but there are plenty of people for whom a server job is something not to be turned down just on the dangers of secondary smoke side effects decades down the line.

As I have stated many times, there is no other type of job where employees are exposed to extremely hazardous conditions with zero safeguards or protection of any kind.

The government has never said, "Getting black lung in coal mines? Well, go work somewhere else and everyone just carry on."

So why do we continue to make this one absurd exception? Look no further than the monsterours and truly evil tobacco lobby.

Why the wealthy stopped smoking, but the poor didn’t (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-wealthy-stopped-smoking-but-the-poor-didnt/)


the rate of smoking among people making less than $24,000 a year was more than double that of those making $90,000 or more.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/032008smoking1.gif

Honestly, I have to agree with PluPan. Especially in the service industry, there is no shortage of open positions - the overwhelming majority of which are non-smoking. Really, the only thing forcing you to work at a workplace that allows smoking is you. Besides, if you're applying for work at a bar that allows smoking, there's a high likelihood that you're a smoker yourself, and you obviously know what you're about to be exposed to - much in the same way that you know if you apply to work in an auto shop, you're about to exposed to motor oil, gasoline, brake dust, etc, etc.

The only situation where I can understand this argument is where a previously non-smoking workplace decides to allow smoking. At that point, you're already committed to that job, and the only way to keep yourself from being exposed to that environment would be to change jobs. But that's not really the situation we're talking about here.

Does anyone know if there is modern, recent guidance from OSHA about the permissible exposure limits for the constituent chemicals of second-hand smoke? Someone posted a link earlier, but that article mentioned OSHA studies done 20 years ago and I'm not sure how relevant that data is today.

Service industry jobs are plentiful *now* and in Oklahoma City.

We are talking about long-term and statewide, and those conditions fluctuate wildly by location and macroeconomics.


Also, just because you smoke does not mean second-hand smoke isn't very bad for you.

Only simple when you want to view things in an over simplistic fashion to fit into some crazy broad political stance that doesn't require educating yourself or critical thought.


One of the biggest things is to have some impact on young people starting to smoke, starting a lifetime of addiction, then becoming a drag on our insurance and government supported healthcare programs, which we all pay for. Disproportionally, people who smoke are poorer than average and thus less likely to pay for their own health care. How does that fit into your political views?


There are still hundreds of places where people can smoke indoors in OKC and thousands throughout the state. You can name one that switched voluntarily and the only reason you know their business has gone up is because I reported it after running into the owner at a bar. So, to claim this is common knowledge in the bar industry is silly.

We can think of one that switched voluntarily; new places are generally opening as non-smoking because they know the law is going to change. They are all part of the Oklahoma Restaurant Association and that's how I knew about the forth-coming changes myself, and was the whole reason I started this thread.

Even WSKY -- with cigars as a core part of their business -- was built out a couple of years ago with the idea of converting to non-smoking because they know the laws will change, as they already have just about everywhere else.


This matter has already been researched to death and dozens of states and countries have already gone down the path we will too, just typically very late while the entire health of our state suffers.

Not everything has to be a massively complicated difficult issue to deal with.

Like smoking go to smoking bars.
Don't like smoking don't go to smoky bars.


People should have personal freedoms and suffer said consequences of said freedoms.

The argument you are making broadens way to quickly and gets way too complicated and leads to no answers or solutions whatsoever. Like saying how does the increased health care costs because of smoking fit into my political views? Yeah, sure that's easy let's talk smoking and the 1/6 of the American economy AKA the American health care system. And the health care costs of smoking are minuscule compared to the current costs and upcoming costs of the obesity epidemic.

So what are you really concerned with? health care costs? That has thousands upon thousands of problems, increased smoker costs are just a tiny piece.

It's not that I'm not educated or incapable of critical thought. It's that I fundamentally disagree on the premise. If a person wants to smoke they can. If someone wants to have his or her establishment open to smokers, they can. If someone doesn't want to work in a smoking environment they shouldn't. It all lays at the foot of personal responsibility of each individual. You are in a collective mindset, that rules and regulations on businesses (city planning, roads, etc are functions of the government and therefore regulation is needed) should try to benefit society as a whole (an oh there's millions upon millions of examples of how they've failed at this, they aren't even good at it most of the time) and therefore business owners and customers will be told what they can and can't do.

I'm not anti-government or anti-regulation. I'm anti-unnecessary business regulation, particularly in areas the free market has the power to change things quicker and more efficiently. Which it has it has been in OKC. That's enough for me. If Joe Bob wants to fry his lungs good that's fine with me, I'll go to places that don't allow smoking.

Okay, that's a fair and valid point. I worked in the service industry during the height of the recession and although we were still hiring, the job market overall for the service industry was tighter than normal. I could still have gotten a job elsewhere, but I would have had to have worked much harder to get that job. In the future, that situation could be worse.

As for the smoke issue... I'm not saying that second-hand smoke isn't bad, but the first-hand smoke you're breathing in is certainly going to be worse for you. You're already comfortable with the risk that smoking presents to you, so the second-hand isn't going to be of any additional concern to a smoker. I say this as a former smoker myself.

Not everything has to be a massively complicated difficult issue to deal with.

Like smoking go to smoking bars.
Don't like smoking don't go to smoky bars.


People should have personal freedoms and suffer said consequences of said freedoms.

The argument you are making broadens way to quickly and gets way too complicated and leads to no answers or solutions whatsoever. Like saying how does the increased health care costs because of smoking fit into my political views? Yeah, sure that's easy let's talk smoking and the 1/6 of the American economy AKA the American health care system. And the health care costs of smoking are minuscule compared to the current costs and upcoming costs of the obesity epidemic.

So what are you really concerned with? health care costs? That has thousands upon thousands of problems, increased smoker costs are just a tiny piece.

It's not that I'm not educated or incapable of critical thought. It's that I fundamentally disagree on the premise. If a person wants to smoke they can. If someone wants to have his or her establishment open to smokers, they can. If someone doesn't want to work in a smoking environment they shouldn't. It all lays at the foot of personal responsibility of each individual. You are in a collective mindset, that rules and regulations on businesses (city planning, roads, etc are functions of the government and therefore regulation is needed) should try to benefit society as a whole (an oh there's millions upon millions of examples of how they've failed at this, they aren't even good at it most of the time) and therefore business owners and customers will be told what they can and can't do.

I'm not anti-government or anti-regulation. I'm anti-unnecessary business regulation, particularly in areas the free market has the power to change things quicker and more efficiently. Which it has it has been in OKC. That's enough for me. If Joe Bob wants to fry his lungs good that's fine with me, I'll go to places that don't allow smoking.

The exact same logic could be used to abolish every OSHA regulation, which is how you should know it's bad logic. Want to work in an office with a wet floor and bare electrical wires? Freedom! Want to have the office you own have the same dangers? Freedom!

I'm not anti-government or anti-regulation. I'm anti-unnecessary business regulation, particularly in areas the free market has the power to change things quicker and more efficiently. Which it has it has been in OKC. That's enough for me. If Joe Bob wants to fry his lungs good that's fine with me, I'll go to places that don't allow smoking.

Except as has already been discussed and proven, the only reason change is happening is due to the pending law changes. Talk to anyone involved in ORA if you don't believe me -- I've talked to their president about this very issue.

So this is where this part of your argument is completely invalid.

Without these pending changes -- which have been in the process of being negotiated for the last couple of years -- there were almost zero 'market forces' impacting this issue.


Just curious: Do you think seatblets should have never been mandated or various other car safety issues? They only happened once the government stepped in and mandated all types of things, as the auto industry fought tooth and nail. And now there is no question that society has benefited greatly from these changes, as have auto makers.

There are times where the government can affect important change that is to the benefits to citizens and businesses alike, and this is one of those issues that has already been proven again and again over decades.

We are not dealing with hypotheticals; plenty of data and history to back all this up because as usual other states and even countries are much more progressive on these issues.

There are reasons Oklahoma's smoking rate and general health indicators lag almost all other states.

Interesting article I found while researching whether OSHA has done any further studies (can't find any.) We are all smart enough to know that data can be manipulated to a desired outcome. There are plenty of studies on both sides that support their stance as well as plenty of article that attempt to show how the data was manipulated.

This article is interesting as it points to recent studies that 2nd hand smoke doesn't cause lung cancer. It does not speak to other health issues like asthma, etc. What is interesting is how the real motivation and the result is to change society's perception of smoking and to discourage new smokers / change societal behavior. This is where the cost savings comes. I am not saying this article is right or wrong but only that it is a different perspective.


https://reason.com/blog/2013/12/16/is-it-safe-yet-to-have-an-honest-convers

It does not speak to other issues like asthma etc.

It was't about other health issues caused by second hand smoke but did go so far as to include a quote mentioning them as valid. Employers should protect employees from these kinds of problems and be forced to by OSHA when they act otherwise IMO.


Even more revealing than the study's findings are the comments from experts quoted in the article (emphasis added):

Jyoti Patel, MD, of Northwestern University School of Medicine said the findings were not new....

"Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer," said Patel. "The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm

Duh. It's bad for you and everyone around you, thus we need change

Common sense tells you that breathing in toxic smoke in an enclosed environment is very bad for you.

Don't need studies to tell you that but there are certainly plenty of them around, many from the most trusted sources in these matters.


This is one of those issues where future generations will look back and say, "What the H were they thinking back then?"

We've known cigarettes are incredibly lethal since the early 60's yet about 1 in 5 adults in the U.S. still smoke. I get the addiction thing but given what we know and the great communication and health resources available, it's outrageous smoking is still so prevalent and allowed in places like bars and restaurants.

Would the tribe owned casinos, have to abide by these laws also?

Nope, unfortunately.