57.0
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
OUR VIEW: Okla. restaurant, bar smoking policy works as it is

Friday, October 30, 2009

On Thursday, representatives from the American Heart Association and the Oklahoma State Department of Public Health said they support a potential state bill that would prohibit smoking in restaurants and bars, according to an AP article.

If that bill is passed by the Oklahoma legislature when it reconvenes in 2010, it will represent a change to the current policy, which allows smoking in restaurants and bars that have separate areas for the practice, the article said.

That policy was enacted in 2003 and caused many business owners to spend money making their restaurants and bars compatible with the law while still allowing smoking.

If the policy gets revised, as some from the American Heart Association and the Department of Public Health want, the money those establishment operators spent trying to follow the current law would have been wasted.

While we agree in principle with the concept of no smoking in Oklahoma bars and restaurants, we would not support this piece of legislation because it reaches too far past the current policy, which does a good job of accommodating smokers and nonsmokers alike.

Because of the requirement that smokers must use their tobacco products in a separate room while dining at a restaurant, they are happy because they can still smoke.

And nonsmokers are also happy because they can dine without having to deal with smoke.

It is true that Oklahomans as a whole need to take steps to improve their health when it comes to tobacco. According to statistics from the Department of Health, more than a fourth of Oklahoma adults currently smoke, and almost half have been smokers.

But the restrictive nature of this bill, as well as the economic negatives it could have for restaurant and bar owners, makes it unworthy of passage, especially when Oklahoma already has a quality policy in place.

Comments

"It is true that Oklahomans as a whole need to take steps to improve their health when it comes to tobacco.'

Question: Why do we necessarily "need" to do that? -assuming you are referring to the people who smoke without disturbing others.

The argument- that illnesses caused by smoking drives up insurance costs is being taken care by Obama.
Even if we are all going to be able to live to be 80, (which making it another ten years looks increasing unlikely) why should we necessarily want to.

I saw a bio on Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond, which commented on his lifestyle of heavy drinking and smoking of unfiltered cigarettes as "living life by his own rules and desires with his foot planted down firmly on the accelerator."

Fortunately for Fleming, he lived in a time where he had the freedom to do so without condemnation and sanction from the government nanny-state.

Again it is all based on the assumption that we've got at least 60 years ahead of us. Never mind that Iran and possibly the Taliban will soon have the bomb.

Posted by anonymous / mustafa on October 30, 2009 at 11:22 a.m.

"Even if we are all going to be able to live to be 80, (which making it another ten years looks increasing unlikely) why should we necessarily want to."

By all means, please do us the favor. Obviously no woman will ever want to be with you - because you think they're stupid whores who like to make up false rape accusations - so what will you have to live for when the kool-aid runs out?

Posted by anonymous / JJanowiak on October 30, 2009 at 2:01 p.m.

it's easy, folks. we have choices in life. educate yourself and use a business, hobby, food, etc. that suits your lifestyle. we don't need big brothers like Dpt of Public Health or Amer Heart Association making decisions for us.

is jjanowiak playing leftfield today??

Posted by anonymous / kdbp1213 on November 2, 2009 at 2:45 p.m.

Post a comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment: