Smoking in Oklahoma: Five states that have gone smoke-free
One of the biggest debates at the Oklahoma Capitol right now is whether the state will pass a law allowing cities to pass their own smoking laws.
Health advocates, including Gov. Mary Fallin, argue that passing this law would have a major impact on the state’s health. They also argue that only Oklahoma and Tennessee have this type of restrictive law on the books regarding cities and smoking ordinances.
Opponents say that cities passing their own smoking laws would be confusing to business owners and also would trample on individual rights. Others voice concerns that a smoking ban could have a negative impact on business.
I’m not here to argue who’s right. I’ll leave that to, well, non-journalists. However, I was curious about other states that have made similar efforts. So, here’s a list of five states that have recently gone “smoke-free” in some regard.
1. North Dakota
North Dakota is the 28th smokefree state in the U.S. through approval of a ballot initiative in November. North Dakota went smoke free through the same type of effort Gov. Fallin proposed yesterday. Fallin proposed the ballot initiative after lawmakers refused to hear Senate Bill 36, which would have allowed cities to pass their own smoking ordinances.
In North Dakota, you cannot smoke in all public buildings, including restaurants, bars, places of business, hotels, health care facilities, tobacco stores, workplace vehicles and taxis.
In one news story, a few bar owners discussed the potential impact of the ban:
Anderson said business might slow down initially but then pick up once nonsmokers start coming more often. When Bismarck passed a citywide smoking ban, Anderson didn’t see an increased number of patrons.
Now that the ban has passed, Anderson will have the carpet replaced and minor remodeling done.
“We were going to do it last summer and then we said, ‘Let’s wait and see what happens with this smoking ban,’” she said.
2. Wisconsin
Before the law passed, bar owners worried the law would hurt business. Two years later, there’s a mixed review on what impact the law has had on bar business.
A study through the University of Wisconsin researched bartenders and found that “this policy will help reduce the future risk of disease related to secondhand smoke among employees and patrons of bars and restaurants throughout the state.”
3. Indiana
Indiana’s smoking law went into effect in July. Unlike Wisconsin and North Dakota, Indiana’s smoking law does not ban smoking in bars.
Rather, in Indiana, you can smoke in a “horse-racing facility, a riverboat, a facilitywith a gambling game license, a satellite-gaming facility, cigar bars, hookah bars, certain fraternal clubs, a retail-tobacco store, a bar or tavern meeting certain requirements, a cigar-manufacturing facility, a cigar-specialty store, a business in a private residence…”
There’s a current discussion in Indiana to extend the ban to bars, but that doesn’t look likely to happen.
4. Michigan
Starting in May 2010, smoking was banned in Michigan in most public places.
The law will cover any workplace and any food service establishment. A workplace is a site employing at least one person. A food service establishment is any place with a license to serve food or beverages. This law covers public places, including, but not limited to, restaurants, bars, shopping malls, bowling alleys, concert halls, arenas, museums, mechanic shops, health facilities, nursing homes, education facilities, and child carecenters.
After the law passed, a bar owner challenged the constitutionality of the smoking ban on the grounds that it unfairly provides advantages to casinos and has illegally cut into his profits.
Meanwhile, a study through the University of Michigan found that, after two years, the smoking ban had “no significant negative impact on bars and restaurants.” The study was commissioned by the state of Michigan.
5. Kansas
Under the Kansas smoking ban, which became effective July 1, 2010, you cannot smoke in the following places:
- Public places
- Places of employment
- Restaurants
- Bars
- Taxicabs and limousines
- Lobbies, hallways and other common areas in apartment buildings and other multiple-residential facilities
- Restrooms, lobbies and other common areas in hotels and motels
- Within 10 feet of any doorway, open window or air intake where smoking is prohibited
In January, the Kansas Health Institute argued that “there is no apparent evidence that smoking bans in Kansas have been associated with a decrease in statewide restaurant and bar sales, or with a decrease in the number of establishments serving liquor.”
Meanwhile, there has been some movement to exempt bars from the ban.
Thank you for joining our conversation on NewsOK Health Blog. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
I personally, am not a smoker, but I think that this a ridiculous idea. I have always thought that it should be a business owners decision as to whether or not to be smoke free. If an owner chooses to allow smoking, then people who do not want to be exposed to the smoke can then exercise their right not to go into the business. It is just another way for government to intrude on individual rights. it amazes me that consuming alchol is also detrimental to a persons health as well as that persons ability to perform tasks. However, where are these same calls to ban alcohol?
Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.
The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.
While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.
On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA, where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside.
At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).
From Bayer & Stuber
“…..In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.”
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886
This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a background phenomenon. Now exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS) has been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon like, say, sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the “stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”; there are now those, hand cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute remnants of smoke – even outdoors. There are those that claim that, arriving from a night out, they had to put all of their clothes in the washing machine and scrape the “smoke” of their skin in the shower. There are even those that claim they are “allergic” to tobacco smoke. Yet there are no allergens (proteins) in tobacco smoke to be allergic to. And it didn’t stop with just the smoke. Cigarette butts – heretofore unheard of – suddenly became a “monumental problem” too. These are all recent phenomena born of toxic propaganda; it is an expanding hysteria. It says nothing about the physical properties/propensities of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Typical symptoms of anxiety disorder are heart palpitations, chest tightness, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, etc. These capnophobics (smokephobics) are no different to those irrationally attempting to avoid cracks in the pavement lest their mental world come crashing down. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda. It is the fanatics/zealots/extremists and their toxic mentality and propaganda that have long been in need of urgent scrutiny.
I showed the Kansas Health Institute to TWO economists. Both agreed that the “study” showed nothing at all. And, it did NOT list the conflict of interest of the Kansas Health Institute who have received funding to promote smoking bans.
You can lie to some of the people some of the time, but not to me. I CAN READ. Also, the Univ of Michigan, who produces MANY pro ban reports, has as it’s president a Ms Coleman, who is on the Board of Johnson and Johnson, the company that sells the patches and gums.
While I respect others points of view and champion the right of free speech, should it not be the individuals choice to smoke or not? Have we lost our intellectual capabilities to think for ourselves? I do not promote or encourage smoking or endorse any tobacco products, but I do support the freedom of choice. When people feel opressed, they rebel against the enforcers and will voice their anger towards anyone who cares to listen. Where does it all end?
Oklahomans, Please do your best to keep Oklahoma free.
Let business owners keep their right to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking in their establishments. Let Oklahomans decide whether or not they want to work or frequent those establishments. Don’t force your will on others.
Don’t follow those states that have cut off freedoms using fear and “safety for all” to control and take your freedom of choice.
Avoid the PC BS that is so pervasive in the knee-jerk reaction legislation of Washington and kowtowing states.
You and I many not smoke, but stand up for those that want and deserve a choice. Fight the urge to be Californicated.
Vote for independent thought. Vote for freedom. Vote for a free Oklahoma.