Tobacco ban at ALL of Oklahoma Memorial Stadium

[badger]

Guys, when I started the thread on the South Oval involving the proposed smoking ban at the Norman campus, I didn't think it applied to all types of tobacco, but more importantly, I didn't think it would apply to the entire football stadium.

The agenda is now posted online for tomorrow's (3:30 p.m. Tuesday at OUHSC campus in Oklahoma City) meeting... and I fear the worst:


GAYLORD FAMILY OKLAHOMA MEMORIAL STADIUM
The prevention of exposure to secondhand smoke for visitors to the stadium during
football games or other events is a particular challenge due to the high density of people
in a confined space. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible to avoid exposure to
secondhand smoke for these individuals. Therefore, the stadium will be completely
tobacco free during all events.

I am a non-smoker. Smoking makes me feel sick. And yes, if I see someone spitting chewing tobacco into a pop bottle that makes me feel sick in a different way too.

A completely tobacco-free stadium is just asking people to find places to use tobacco to the detriment of smokers and non-smokers alike. I am picturing people smoking in bathrooms, people chewing tobacco wherever (since there's no designated spot for it) and going to various lengths to get their nicotine fixes in, because after all, there's also a no-re-entry policy after the student committed suicide via bomb on a south oval bench a few years ago (KSU 2005).

The entire regents agenda, complete with the tobacco-free proposed policy (effective July 1 if passed), is here. (http://www.ou.edu/regents/official_agenda/JanuaryFinalAgenda.pdf)

I am deeply worried about what will happen if there are no designated tobacco use areas in Oklahoma Memorial Stadium as this agenda line seems to imply :(

[SoonerTerry]

meh... I'll just bring my chewable ciggs to the next game

[Widescreen]

I'm OK with this. Don't care for having to walk by the designated smoking areas and holding my breath.

[Curly Bill]

I'm all for banning tobacco anywhere except in your own home. As granny tells Josey Wales: That's a nasty habit young man.

[rekamrettuB]

Probably doing it for the cleanup crew more than other spectators.

[badger]

Who here has seen someone sneak alcohol into Oklahoma Memorial Stadium despite the fact that the stadium (and rest of campus) is alcohol-free?

(everyone raises hands)

And now, who here themselves has snuck alcohol into Oklahoma Memorial Stadium despite the fact that the stadium (and rest of campus) is alcohol-free?

(everyone raises hands)

I anticipate the same thing will happen if OU does not provide either exceptions to this rule (passes out of the stadium to smoke, designated smoking areas, etc), anything.

I am all for keeping smokers away from people that have health reactions to smoke (myself included), but taking away the ability to smoke completely for that long of a period of time is just asking for trouble.

[setem]

STOP ME FROM DIPPING! I'M A THUG 1st!

[NorthernIowaSooner]

I don't think sneaking in tobacco will be that rampant. Chewing tobacco maybe because there are those non spit ones that are made now, I have friends that use those at work. That does eliminate the spitting into bottles.

As for smoking, I think there are enough people who really dislike it that will complain if someone is smoking in the restrooms. If the university responds to these people smoking within the stadium with some real consequences then people will not do it.

Iowa banned smoking in bars and all workplaces a few years ago and there was some backlash from smokers initially but they realized they would rather go to the bar and not smoke than smoke and hang outside by themselves and it is no longer an issue.

People will get used to it.

[MamaMia]

I know there is a designated area for smokers somewhere on the south by...I think...gate 17? I just made a point of not going there. There are plenty of other places to go to avoid the smokers.

Not being able to leave the stadium during half time just because some nut case blew himself up however, I never understood that.

I never saw the harm in people walking in and out to have a beer with a tailgate buddy during the half, plus it was always fun to do tradsies with a friend or family member by getting or giving them your ticket, so you both could see half the game and you both could also tailgate with your certain group of friends or family who do tailgate. It kept fans in the seats. That rule always seemed like killing a gnat with a baseball type thing to me.

It was unfair and also never made sense to me that people who have suites or tickets in the Santee Lounge can have booze, but the fans with tickets Kerr McGee Club had that privilege taken away, even though that was one of the selling points. There was never found any reported incident of any trouble caused by the Kerr McGee fans who were able to have a drink. They just made the decision to ban drinking right before the 3rd home game after they opened the Kerr McGee Club. They told people that they would give them a partial refund and allow them to sacrifice having season tickets for the remainder of the year, and give them seats in the south end zone or southeast corner above the visitors band section the following season. The big problem with that however was that so many of these people who bought seats in the Kerr McGee Club gave up premium seats on the 50 yard line or somewhere in between the 35s that were no longer available to them. Now THAT was so totally unfair.

I believe that there will be a big drop off in attendance at half time, just like whats happened since the "no leaving the stadium and being able to return at the half" rule came into effect.

[SoonerPride]

The combination of increased taxation and limiting areas in which smoking is allowed has had the desired public policy effect which is to significantly curtail the percentage of people who smoke.

Kudos to lawmakers and public health officials for taking what had been a widespread common practice and making it (nearly) taboo.

The cost in terms of health dollars in the country has been enormous.

I joked years ago about the next front for public health officials would be fat. It won't be too long before they make consuming fast food and junk food equally onerous.

[badger]

I joked years ago about the next front for public health officials would be fat. It won't be too long before they make consuming fast food and junk food equally onerous.

I always thought this line from Voyage of the Dawn Treader was funny:


They were very up-to-date and advanced people. They were vegetarians, non-smokers and teetotalers and wore a special kind of underclothes. In their house there was very little furniture and very few clothes on the beds and the windows were always open.

It was cute because back then, non-smokers were the uppity people.

Voyage was written in 1950 and published in 1952

[Fraggle145]

I don't think sneaking in tobacco will be that rampant. Chewing tobacco maybe because there are those non spit ones that are made now, I have friends that use those at work. That does eliminate the spitting into bottles.

As for smoking, I think there are enough people who really dislike it that will complain if someone is smoking in the restrooms. If the university responds to these people smoking within the stadium with some real consequences then people will not do it.

Iowa banned smoking in bars and all workplaces a few years ago and there was some backlash from smokers initially but they realized they would rather go to the bar and not smoke than smoke and hang outside by themselves and it is no longer an issue.

People will get used to it.

No it doesnt. I will still spit into a bottle. And Id say there is probably a 95% chance I will never get reported.

A Non-spit bottle is basically saying they gut it out.

Spit or swallow.

[EatLeadCommie]

We have really become a wimpy society. Secondhand smoke exposure at the game is extremely limited, and since it's outdoors there is really nothing to complain about at all. I say suck it up. I'd rather deal with a tiny bit of secondhand smoke that isn't going to hurt me in any way than deal with 10,000 people in bad moods because they can't get a nic fix.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Enough spectators hate smoking enough to informally enforce this. Most fans don't give a damn about others drinking unless they get unruly.

[47straight]

Probably doing it for the cleanup crew more than other spectators.

Good point.

[NCarolinaSooner]

Honestly, I am surprised there wasn't already a ban. Smoking has been banned at Kenan Stadium in Chapel Hill, North Carolina (and within 100 feet of any campus building) since 2008. I remember the legal smoking days----gross! Some dude could be puffing away on a cigar two feet away from your nose for three hours in 100 degree heat. I'd rather have the drunks---as long as they aren't violent or barfing.

[EatLeadCommie]

Honestly, I am surprised there wasn't already a ban. Smoking has been banned at Kenan Stadium in Chapel Hill, North Carolina (and within 100 feet of any campus building) since 2008. I remember the legal smoking days----gross! Some dude could be puffing away on a cigar two feet away from your nose for three hours in 100 degree heat. I'd rather have the drunks---as long as they aren't violent or barfing.
No surprise since Chapel Hill is pretty much a liberal mecca. The 100 feet ban is completely ridiculous, and something that a lot of cities have sought to emulate both before and since, though in varying degrees (100 feet seems pretty severe). IIRC, the NC legislature did a statewide ban in the last year or two, which raised my eyebrows a bit due to NC being home to RJR.

In any case, smoking in the seats is already barred at Owen Field. I have no problem with the existing smoking policy.

[EatLeadCommie]

Probably doing it for the cleanup crew more than other spectators.
Doesn't Owen Field have the cigarette disposal thingies? I thought it did. If not, they should get them. Still, I'd think peanut shells in the aisles are the more difficult cleanup option.

[goingoneight]

If smokers don't like this idea, they can feel free to give up their tickets to those who abide by the rules. We'll still sell out the games. :P

[budbarrybob]

I'm for this.

[8timechamps]

No it doesnt. I will still spit into a bottle. And Id say there is probably a 95% chance I will never get reported.

A Non-spit bottle is basically saying they gut it out.

Spit or swallow.

People like myself that chew (Copenhagen) don't use "spit-free" tobacco (snus) on a regular basis. I've tried it, but it did nothing for me. "Dippers" will continue to chew in the stadium, because it's much easier to hide and 99.9% of non-tobacco people aren't going to report someone for chewing.

Now in Vegas, it's a different story. I almost got kicked out of Mandalay Bay for chewing at the craps table. I thought they didn't want me to put my empty beer bottle in the drink-holder, but the rule is you can't chew at the table. What seemed outrageous to me was that there was a dude smoking a cigar right next to me, and they didn't say anything to him. Maybe I wasn't losing enough money.

[Chiliman]

I'm all for banning tobacco anywhere except in your own home. As granny tells Josey Wales: That's a nasty habit young man.
Agreed.

[SoonerNutt]

If you can't make it 3 hours without niccotine, get an e-cig. No rules against water vapor, I'd bet. Otherwise, there is niccotine gum, the patch, or snus that you don't spit, or any other numbers of ways to get around a no smoking establishment rule.

[yermom]

that, or maybe re-evaluate your life ;) (same goes for beer)

[olevetonahill]

Like I said in the other thread, Ive smoked for over 46 years. Even I can go the whole game with out a smoke break
Hell I usually do anyway
cause Im to dayum lazy to walk to the Designated areas
Now While Ima drankin and Bull****in Ima have my smokes
Thats why at the TGs I stay off in the corner

[hawaii 5-0]

Ban all smoking in the stadium and on campus.

Those that want to chew or dip can swallow it.


5-0

[prrriiide]

They should put a smoker's cage on top of the press box.

Besides...when I was a smoker I used to go from 2 hours before kickoff to an hour after every game without a smoke. Didn't like it, but those were the rules. No smoking in uniform. So deal with it.

[Seamus]

Hell, if you have to have your fix, just spike in a little Mexican-grade black tar. That'll get you through the third-quarter at least.

[OUstud]

This better mean they're letting people out at halftime again with re-entry.

I don't smoke, but I imagine that getting to your seats, say, 20 minutes before kickoff to see the pregame festivities, then sitting through a 3 1/2 hour game (that could get tense against, say, ND or OSU) would make for some irritable fans. Irritable fans yell obscenities. Dads with their kids yell at the irritable fans, becoming irritable themselves. The irritable fans fight. CSC escorts the irritable fans out while their kids cry. Don't be escorted out by CSC while your kids cry. [/DirecTV]

[EatLeadCommie]

I find the intolerance of people toward smokers quite amusing. First it was no smoking in airplanes (an absolutely reasonable request), then smoking sections in restaurants (another one), then no smoking in restaurants, then no smoking in bars, and now it's no smoking anywhere that a precious nose might be affected. The line is always being moved. Soon, those who advocate it only for homes will change their tunes due to somebody's kid growing up in a smoking house and having lung problems. As a nonsmoker, I find the sanctimony behind the whole thing pretty ridiculous. If people want to smoke, it's frigging legal. Let them smoke. And if they are smoking in the concourse between quarters or at halftime, I really don't care. Doesn't bother me in the least. There is no inherent right to not be offended by cigarette smoke, nor is the public health in any way affected by some people puffing on cigarettes outside for a couple minutes when you usually aren't anywhere near them anyway. It seems to me that the anti-smoking crusade is just another bit of that not so savory history we have of involving ourselves in peoples' business in the name of public health. Prohibition would be yet another example. Guns, to a lesser extent, are another.

If people want to feel like they smell better or are better people than smokers because they choose not to smoke, so be it. That does not mean that we have to involve ourselves in every facet of an individual's life in the name of public health or to "keep health care costs down" or anything else. The excuses and reasons do not trump a person's individual freedom in this case. If they did, then we'd be regulating what people eat, how much they exercise, and any number of larger factors. Sadly, I have no doubt that those will also soon be on the agenda.

So, while it is certainly in vogue to rip on smokers or disparage their habit as nasty, I would implore some of you to ask yourselves how much are you really convenienced or inconvenienced by the increasing infringement on a smoker's rights, how much your health is really affected, and what business is it of your's if a person wants to smoke, or dip, or whatever. Is your personal dissatisfaction with the act of smoking really and truly a reason to impose your feelings on those who opt to partake?

[Spray]

What they might do is something simlar to UVA and other stadiums with a similar policy. They'll choose 1 or 2 gates and create a space outside that gate that is barricaded out. You will go outside the gate (and thus outside the stadium) to this area, have your smoke, and re-enter.

Basically, they will create a stadium-wide no smoking policy, but still have designated smoking areas just outside of the stadium that still allow them to control entry and re-entry. This would be an exception to the no re-entry policy because indidivduals would never be more than 100 feet from the gate and would have to stay inside a controlled area.

[delhalew]

We do love to tell other people what they can and can't do.

[badger]

For all of you that say you can get through an OU football game without smoking... did this include the 90s or just the aughts? :D

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I can remember smoking during Physics lab as a Sooner Freshman. The Professor smoked during lab too.

And one of my calc professors was a chain smoker, who would light one smoke off another. I guess it was an example of continuity.

When I moved to California I found out smokers rated just below child molesters.

[SoonerPride]

We do love to tell other people what they can and can't do.

Are you sure about that? I don't think they're making it illegal to smoke, just where someone can do it.

This is like telling someone where they can use the bathroom.

Not in front of me, thanks.

You can smoke, but not in front of me, thanks.

[SoonerMachine]

I find the intolerance of people toward smokers quite amusing. First it was no smoking in airplanes (an absolutely reasonable request), then smoking sections in restaurants (another one), then no smoking in restaurants, then no smoking in bars, and now it's no smoking anywhere that a precious nose might be affected. The line is always being moved. Soon, those who advocate it only for homes will change their tunes due to somebody's kid growing up in a smoking house and having lung problems. As a nonsmoker, I find the sanctimony behind the whole thing pretty ridiculous. If people want to smoke, it's frigging legal. Let them smoke. And if they are smoking in the concourse between quarters or at halftime, I really don't care. Doesn't bother me in the least. There is no inherent right to not be offended by cigarette smoke, nor is the public health in any way affected by some people puffing on cigarettes outside for a couple minutes when you usually aren't anywhere near them anyway. It seems to me that the anti-smoking crusade is just another bit of that not so savory history we have of involving ourselves in peoples' business in the name of public health. Prohibition would be yet another example. Guns, to a lesser extent, are another.

If people want to feel like they smell better or are better people than smokers because they choose not to smoke, so be it. That does not mean that we have to involve ourselves in every facet of an individual's life in the name of public health or to "keep health care costs down" or anything else. The excuses and reasons do not trump a person's individual freedom in this case. If they did, then we'd be regulating what people eat, how much they exercise, and any number of larger factors. Sadly, I have no doubt that those will also soon be on the agenda.

So, while it is certainly in vogue to rip on smokers or disparage their habit as nasty, I would implore some of you to ask yourselves how much are you really convenienced or inconvenienced by the increasing infringement on a smoker's rights, how much your health is really affected, and what business is it of your's if a person wants to smoke, or dip, or whatever. Is your personal dissatisfaction with the act of smoking really and truly a reason to impose your feelings on those who opt to partake?

Good summary and I agree.

[rekamrettuB]

Doesn't Owen Field have the cigarette disposal thingies? I thought it did. If not, they should get them. Still, I'd think peanut shells in the aisles are the more difficult cleanup option.

I was talking about the spitters.

[Mississippi Sooner]

This ban shouldn't apply to Camels since even doctors smoke them.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jX9QklC3G4E/SwTEd6jAglI/AAAAAAAAB4Q/_pHQa3LNRiI/s400/vintage-cigarette-ad-05.jpg

[delhalew]

Are you sure about that? I don't think they're making it illegal to smoke, just where someone can do it.

This is like telling someone where they can use the bathroom.

Not in front of me, thanks.

You can smoke, but not in front of me, thanks.

Like I said.

[Sooner_Tuf]

In a nation of non-doers we want to be sure nobody else does anything either. Being nonproductive is serious business.

[rekamrettuB]

In a nation of non-doers we want to be sure nobody else does anything either. Being nonproductive is serious business.

Did you post this in the wrong thread? :sneakiness: Love your point but are you saying smoking/dipping is being productive?

[oudavid1]

I'm OK with this. Don't care for having to walk by the designated smoking areas and holding my breath.

im very anti-tobacco overall, but this seems a bit excessive.

[badger]

I know that the regents are gonna rubber stamp this regardless, but if you could offer an alternative plan to them than a blanket ban on the entire stadium, what would you do? Please consider:

1- The rest of the campus, aside from a corner of Dale Hall and the LNC parking lot, will be smoke-free, regardless of what the stadium policy is.

2- The existing policy reads: "Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium is a non-smoking facility. Designated smoking areas are located at gates 1, 5, 7, 11. (West Side ramp for Santee Lounge & Upper Deck Patrons and near Section 234 for those in the upper deck east side.)"

[I Am Right]

Alternative Plan- Freedom!

[rekamrettuB]

Alternative Plan- Freedom!

You have the freedom to not go to the stadium, or any place for that matter, that you don't agree with their policies.

[8timechamps]

if you could offer an alternative plan to them than a blanket ban on the entire stadium, what would you do?



I don't know how I would address the campus issue, but for the stadium, allowing re-entry would go a long way in making the smoking public okay with this ban. As for the chewers, it's going to continue to happen anyway, so there's no real effect.

[I Am Right]

You have the freedom to not go to the stadium, or any place for that matter, that you don't agree with their policies.

Good Post!

[olevetonahill]

And Yall have the FREEDOM to hold yer breath while I smoke :very_drunk:

[badger]

Is there any room to expand Oklahoma Memorial Stadium to include a pavillion of sorts with restaurants, shops, etc?

If so, a bar and smoke area would probably be a good alternative... but it might involve forcing Molly Shi to give up part of the lawn north of the stadium... which is a swampy mess most of the time after rain anyway, so no major loss.

I know we have a mini-Washington Monument on the north lawn now, but eventually, i see us adding cheap upper deck seating to the north endzone bowl (or expensive luxury suites...hmmm) and below that area can be the pavillion with a warming/cooling area (the Packers added a heated area like this when they last expanded the stadium) that people can use not only to cool off, but perhaps also, get a tobacco and alcohol fix.

[prrriiide]

Alternative Plan- Freedom!

http://c1005.r5.cf3.rackcdn.com/2011/02/Braveheart.png

[Sooner5030]

man.....I miss the days of taking hits from my duggout (sp) before walking to class. Not sure what it has to do with smoking cigs in the stadium. But it made me remember those days. Going to class with a little high sure is better than the reality I deal with these days. Of course my job pays better though.

[badger]

As expected, the regents rubbed stamped this. Tobacco-free by July, except two corners of campus.

I wonder if students are gonna have some smoking/tobacco events before then to protest... and, you know, not litter any cigarette butts or tobacco refuse afterward, of course :)

[FirstandGoal]

Disclaimer: I used to be a smoker


I have mixed feelings about the ban. While part of me thinks that this kind of thing oversteps boundaries, I can't help but be glad its happening. I became a smoker in college. Why? Not for most typical reasons. My personal reason was because a couple of people in my study groups were smokers and they would go on and on about how smoking could give you great mental focus and calm your nerves. So.... I lit up with them. Gimme a pot of coffee and a pack of Marlboros and I was good for an all-nighter.

Seriously, I was that stupid. If smoking had been banned from the University of Oklahoma, I would have never started a habit that took me nearly 17 years to kick. It would be different if smoking weren't absolutely positively linked to about a million health problems, but because it is, I support the ban.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Why don't we just ban the game? It's a violent sport where kids get hurt. Ban the concession stands from selling foods that may or may not harm you? Ban the vehicles that supposedly pollute the air from parking on campus.

Get you heads out of your asses and stop being hypocritical about things you don't participate in. We are supposed to be a free society and that includes your freedoms as well as mine.

[SoonerPride]

Why don't we just ban the game? It's a violent sport where kids get hurt. Ban the concession stands from selling foods that may or may not harm you? Ban the vehicles that supposedly pollute the air from parking on campus.

Get you heads out of your asses and stop being hypocritical about things you don't participate in. We are supposed to be a free society and that includes your freedoms as well as mine.

You are free to smoke off campus.

Have a nice day.

[badger]

Get you heads out of your asses and stop being hypocritical about things you don't participate in. We are supposed to be a free society and that includes your freedoms as well as mine.

Smoking is a spectator sport too, my dear, except there's no barriers between a smoker's fumes and my nose, unlike that brick wall separating the football field from the fans.

[SoonerGibb7]

As I am reading this thread, I have a pinch in.

[AlboSooner]

I find the intolerance of people toward smokers quite amusing. First it was no smoking in airplanes (an absolutely reasonable request), then smoking sections in restaurants (another one), then no smoking in restaurants, then no smoking in bars, and now it's no smoking anywhere that a precious nose might be affected. The line is always being moved. Soon, those who advocate it only for homes will change their tunes due to somebody's kid growing up in a smoking house and having lung problems. As a nonsmoker, I find the sanctimony behind the whole thing pretty ridiculous. If people want to smoke, it's frigging legal. Let them smoke. And if they are smoking in the concourse between quarters or at halftime, I really don't care. Doesn't bother me in the least. There is no inherent right to not be offended by cigarette smoke, nor is the public health in any way affected by some people puffing on cigarettes outside for a couple minutes when you usually aren't anywhere near them anyway. It seems to me that the anti-smoking crusade is just another bit of that not so savory history we have of involving ourselves in peoples' business in the name of public health. Prohibition would be yet another example. Guns, to a lesser extent, are another.

If people want to feel like they smell better or are better people than smokers because they choose not to smoke, so be it. That does not mean that we have to involve ourselves in every facet of an individual's life in the name of public health or to "keep health care costs down" or anything else. The excuses and reasons do not trump a person's individual freedom in this case. If they did, then we'd be regulating what people eat, how much they exercise, and any number of larger factors. Sadly, I have no doubt that those will also soon be on the agenda.

So, while it is certainly in vogue to rip on smokers or disparage their habit as nasty, I would implore some of you to ask yourselves how much are you really convenienced or inconvenienced by the increasing infringement on a smoker's rights, how much your health is really affected, and what business is it of your's if a person wants to smoke, or dip, or whatever. Is your personal dissatisfaction with the act of smoking really and truly a reason to impose your feelings on those who opt to partake?

It all sounds melodramatic and all, but the simple fact is that smoking causes cancer, heart disease, and high blood pressure.

Regardless how we spin it, nobody has the right to cause you cancer. Your freedom ends when it infringes upon mine. It is quite a stretch to say that people don't have personal freedoms because they can't smoke everywhere they like.

[EatLeadCommie]

It all sounds melodramatic and all, but the simple fact is that smoking causes cancer, heart disease, and high blood pressure.

Regardless how we spin it, nobody has the right to cause you cancer. Your freedom ends when it infringes upon mine. It is quite a stretch to say that people don't have personal freedoms because they can't smoke everywhere they like.
Nobody is causing you cancer smoking at a football game. It is different to say, hey, I'm working in the food service industry all my life and advocate a total ban at restaurants and bars because I'm around smoke all the time. I find that stance extreme, but at least I understand it. It's another to say you can't smoke at football games in the concourse because the 2 seconds of smoke I inhale for 6-7 Saturdays a year are going to give me cancer, heart disease, and/or high blood pressure. That argument isn't just extreme, but also fallacious.

In any case, I see OU did the expected thing and wussed out, so my point is largely moot. The Smoking Nazis win again.

[tennsooner]

It all sounds melodramatic and all, but the simple fact is that smoking causes cancer, heart disease, and high blood pressure.

Regardless how we spin it, nobody has the right to cause you cancer. Your freedom ends when it infringes upon mine. It is quite a stretch to say that people don't have personal freedoms because they can't smoke everywhere they like.

I honestly hope you don't believe all that crap. I have had a number of Dr.s over the years tell me their worst fear is that one day everyone will quit smoking and when that time comes they will have to come up with a new excuse for why people have diseases. I think you have OD on the hype. If you believe all that crap go to a hospital like Vanderbilt and see how many Dr's are lighting up in the parking lot.

[Soonerfan88]

I'm asthmatic and I think they go overboard with all these bans. Do I want a smoker next to me in the stands? No, but having specified smoking areas at the gates are fine and not harming anyone but those congregated there smoking. Just walking through the area isn't enough to set off an attack, for me. If I choose to stand there and inhale all that 2nd hand smoke, that's my own idiotic decision.

A complete smoking ban in all businesses just went into effect in my town Jan. 1, to include all bars and restaurants. I don't agree with that either. I think it is the right of any private business owner to allow smoking in his/her establishment. Workers and patrons will know up front about the smoke and make their choices accordingly.

[Sooner13]

Our country is fu**ed

[Red]

You don't even technically have a right to smoke. Yes you're allowed to, but it could be outlawed whenever the government sees fit if they so desired. You have the privilege to smoke. Anyway, don't like the rules, don't come. It's like the people that get mad about thenew airport security... you don't have the right to fly in an airplane, it is a privilege.

[BlackwellSooner]

Disclaimer: Ex-smoker, and I marvel that I was ever stupid enough to start - that's my personal opinion, and isn't aimed at any smoking members of this forum, just talking about myself.

I am old enough also to remember the late forties and the 50s and 60s, when it seemed that EVERYBODY smoked. It was inculcated by the society around us, the media, the movie stars - - it was, simply, the thing to do.
Just a SWAG, but I would say that that in the late 50s that 65% of adults smoked. Today, also a SWAG (but if anyone cares to check on the statistics, I'd be interested to know) I'd say that less than 30% of adults smoke - (at least in the United States... other countries is a whole 'nuther matter!) BIG improvement!

A lot of good points have been made by both those who advocate totally banning cigarette smoking in all public places (it's coming, you know) and those like EatLeadCommie, who are more tolerant.
To those who minimize the effects of smoking, watch someone die from cancer. It might change your opinion - or maybe not.

I'll leave you all with this thought - - I am reminded of a sign I saw years ago: "Let's make a deal - You don't smoke, and I won't fart".
Obviously, most farts won't cause high blood pressure, emphysema, cancer, heart disease and a whole host of other maladies. And most people cannot fart upon demand, either... But both are obnoxious to be around.

Oh well. I for one am glad that OU has been progressive enough to implement this change.

I doubt that many of us would dispute that the reduction of smokers from the (estimated) 65% in the 60s to the (estimated) 30% today is a good thing. Creating change requires overcoming inertia, and is usually difficult.

[EatLeadCommie]

You don't even technically have a right to smoke. Yes you're allowed to, but it could be outlawed whenever the government sees fit if they so desired. You have the privilege to smoke. Anyway, don't like the rules, don't come. It's like the people that get mad about thenew airport security... you don't have the right to fly in an airplane, it is a privilege.
Nobody is talking about some constitutional right to smoke here, so let's not get overly dramatic. But it is a legal product and one that, unlike alcohol, doesn't cause people to act like idiots if they have too much of it. I am certainly understanding of the NCAA banning alcohol at its venues for that reason and the fact that 1/4 of college students are under the legal age to drink. Smoking I find to be a completely different animal. If the federal government wants to outlaw it, they better classify it as a Class A narcotic and be prepared for massive layoffs in the tobacco industry. Local governments can, for sure, but it's a bit disingenuous (as government usually is) to want to tax the hell out of smokes in order to increase revenue, while simultaneously discouraging the act of smoking by making it literally impossible to have a smoke outside of your home. It is not in the local municipality's best interest for that sin tax revenue to dry up.

I would like to reiterate that I don't smoke and never cared for it. Lots of friends who do, and lots of friends who don't (more who do, oddly enough, which I find strange since I'm part of the first generation that was really subjected to the Yul Brenner don't smoke stuff all throughout childhood). There is a libertarian bent in my opinion on all this, but mostly I just find it obnoxious that so many people could be so spiteful about something that really doesn't harm them in the least. I've had relatives die of cancer and emphysema. It doesn't make me hate smoking more. Kissing girls with smoke breath kind of does, but oh well. These are the same people who b!tch about smokers and their smoke breaks in the spring time, but laugh at them when they're outside in the rain, snow or 110 degree heat partaking in a cig. The same people who forget that they wouldn't even be out there in the first place if they could still smoke in the office, a la Mad Men (not that I advocate smoking in the office).

I think we have our priorities straight when it comes to segregating smokers and non-smokers. I totally understand that. What I don't like is marginalizing smokers. And there is also a difference between what OU is fully within its rights to do (in this case, banning smoking), and what it actually should do. This is a classic overstep, but most people won't care because it doesn't affect them, and probably a good portion of the smokers will make do as well...at least until OU has another halftime like they did against Taco Tech or aTm this year that causes everybody to want to smoke up.

[12]

Back in my day, the urinal troughs stunk of cigars.

Well, and old-man urine.

Bring back the stinky urinal troughs, dadblamit!

[picasso]

Ah yes, urinal troughs. Water cold, deep too!

[Mississippi Sooner]

Heh. Man, I guess you knew you'd really hit bottom if your job was to clean out the cigarette butts and other goodies from the urinal trough.

[UberSooner]

I miss read the thread title as "Re: Taco ban at ALL of Oklahoma Memorial Stadium" and got strangely pissed off.

[badger]

I miss read the thread title as "Re: Taco ban at ALL of Oklahoma Memorial Stadium" and got strangely pissed off.

Pbbbth, Taco Mayo probably pays OU waaaay too much for them to get evicted. They're not an independent yogurt stand taking up valuable Student Union space that can be sold to Quizno's, you know :mad:

[hawaii 5-0]

I smoked for 30 years. Pack a day.

About 15 years ago I saw the writing on the wall. Smoking isn't the thing to do and isn't socially acceptable, like picking your nose and scratching your azz in public.

12 years ago I quit smoking. Not one since. Wasn't easy but it's doable.

I'm still working on the other two problems.

5-0

[StoopTroup]

I think if you smell like smoke....they should arrest you if you try and enter the stadium.

[badger]

I think if you smell like smoke....they should arrest you if you try and enter the stadium.

They might turn you away if you smell that alcohol, so it this statement (I know you're joking) too far-fetched?

[StoopTroup]

They might turn you away if you smell that alcohol, so it this statement (I know you're joking) too far-fetched?

I'll just drink Gin Loniham...

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1233108507/842/648842.jpg

[AlboSooner]

I honestly hope you don't believe all that crap. I have had a number of Dr.s over the years tell me their worst fear is that one day everyone will quit smoking and when that time comes they will have to come up with a new excuse for why people have diseases. I think you have OD on the hype. If you believe all that crap go to a hospital like Vanderbilt and see how many Dr's are lighting up in the parking lot.

It's a conspiracy by doctors, who are trying to cover up their ignorance of real diseases? Yeaaaaaaah

[Sooner91ATL]

Disclaimer:

I doubt that many of us would dispute that the reduction of smokers from the (estimated) 65% in the 60s to the (estimated) 30% today is a good thing. Creating change requires overcoming inertia, and is usually difficult.


Current prevalence of US smokers is closer to 19%, with clusters in urban areas and in the south. Ithas declined 42% since 1960s. A true public health victory for people and the US that probably has had more positive economic impact than smallpox eradication. I grew up in a family of smokers, and I took it up for some years myself. Plainly put, its awful for you and others who breathe the smoke. I am all about freedoms and government taking a pill, but like my grandpa used to say, your freedoms end where my nose begins.


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6038a2.htm

[yermom]

big corn is taking over where big tobacco left off though ;)

[Soonerus]

I think re-entry was banned because of 9/11 long before the guy blew himself up...

[StoopTroup]

I think re-entry was banned because of 9/11 long before the guy blew himself up...

What that Kid did that night we played K-State shook a lot of people up. I was there with my Wife and Kids that game. My Wife was with my Daughter in the South EZ and my Son and me were over on the lower level of the pressbox side around 10 rows or so from the top of the lower level. I could hear the bomb go off. It sounded like two cars hit head on at 70 mph right in front of the Stadium.

Back then we Tailgated over in Goddard Parking lot and we always left the stadium right where the guy blew himself up. When my Son and I left we saw lots of Police and I guess they just didn't see me walking through and suddenly a OHP Officer stopped me right before we walked into the crime scene. I just never figured someone would do that and I was happy we had beat the Mildcats. He was nice and redirected me which would be the best way to go around.

Still creeps me out to this day.

Thank God he never made it into the Stadium and hurt more folks than himself.

I highly doubt we will ever see OU relax the rules because of that.

The Murrah and 9-11 and that kid really changed the way we have to think about crowd control and building security as Americans.

[badger]

I think re-entry was banned because of 9/11 long before the guy blew himself up...

They lifted that policy either that year or the year before after implementing it after 9-11. So, for the first part of that season, re-entry was allowed. And then... not allowed again and not allowed since.

[Jacie]

But it is a legal product and one that, unlike alcohol, doesn't cause people to act like idiots if they have too much of it.

Quite the opposite in fact, people act like idiots if they cannot have any of it. I have seen em whine like babies and get angry enough to punch someone out when they were denied that next fix.

The active ingredient is one of the most addictive discovered so far . . .

[I Am Right]

Re: Thought ban at ALL of Oklahoma Memorial Stadium

[soonerboomer]

I had cancer 15 years ago and was successfully treated using both external and internal radiation. However, my physician emphasized to me that I needed to be very careful and avoid secondary smoke. Whenever I come into an area where someone is smoking, I make it a point to walk around that area. It literally makes me sick when I inhale secondary smoke. Some people who smoke either just don't care or are just plain ignorant of the detrimental effect secondary smoke can have on both former cancer patients and those who have never had cancer. It literally makes me sick to see a parent smoking in a car with a child in the car. Our son who is a physician has often stated that he doesn't understand why some physicians smoke. He says that just a look inside a smoker's body should convince a physician not to smoke. Congratulations to the University of Oklahoma for making the decision to ban the use all tobacco at Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

[StoopTroup]

I understand that some folks are hooked to them. I don't think that most smokers don't give a ****....they just are to weak to stop. I don't know very many folks who quit after smoking for a few years that can't do a Master's Thesis about how their life was during the time that they quit smoking.

I will agree with you SoonerBoomer....physicians....especially surgeons...I don't think I can remember to many Surgeons that smoked. They definitely see the real picture. Not only does it mess up the inside of your body but they now know it really affects your recovery post surgery. Everyone I know that has had a serious surgical procedure....the Surgeons talked with them about quitting or at the very least trying to abstain from smoking until after they recover from their procedure.

My Father and Uncle did quite a few laryngectomies and quite a few oral and neck surgeries to resect the throat and tongue cancers folks got from years of dipping snuff and tobacco. I saw a lot of Dead People walking in and out of their office as I grew up.

People ask me why I decided to not go to Medical School. I can tell you that I did consider it but if I had gone....I wouldn't have wanted to do cancer surgery.

Glad to hear you are doing OK SoonerBoomer.

I've lost Family and Friends to Cancer and I surely hope to see an end to cancer or at the very least a better way to deal with these many cancers that involve brutal surgical procedures instead of less evasive techniques that allow your body to attack and rid you of it.

If they had a pill I could take once a day that would guarantee me that I would never get cancer.....I would work to see it given out for free to every human being on this planet. Those of you who are suffering....God Bless You and may you not suffer during your fight.

[stoopified]

Ban is long overdue.

[badger]

I am listening to Fallin's State of the State address and she is proposing that all state property be smoke-free... and get this:

"We are going to close the State Capitol Smoke Room"

(wild applause by some)

"And... you're going to like this one... and turn it into a fitness center!"

Wow.

[I Am Right]

Unsafe at Any Smoke
By ERIC PETERS on 2.10.12 @ 6:05AM

You didn't think they'd stop at just buckle up laws, right?

Mandatory buckle-up laws set the precedent: Even your own body in your own car is no longer your own personal space.
Here's how it works: The government decides that whatever it is you're doing is "unsafe" -- not specifically in your case, just generally -- maybe, might be, could be -- then asserts the legal authority to criminalize whatever it is you're doing. Which means, it asserts the right to arrest you at gunpoint and threaten you implicitly and perhaps explicitly with lethal violence in order to force you to submit and obey.
Now they're coming for your cigarettes.
A study just released by the CDC (see here) characterizes second-hand smoke as the latest threat to "safety" -- and of course, "the children." It urges what you'd expect: That it be made illegal to smoke in your own car, at least, if "the children" are present and possibly even if they're not. For as any smoker knows -- as anyone who has shopped for used cars knows -- any car that has been smoked in retains the essence of the Marlboro Man for years, even decades after the last butt was crumpled in the ashtray. There is no way to objectively tell whether a car was smoked in last week -- or 10 minutes ago. Hence, it is likely that any evidence of smoking -- ever -- will presently become sufficient excuse for the police to issue tickets, stop people at gunpoint, and perhaps even confiscate their vehicles (as is routinely done when another form of smoke is discovered).
"There is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke," the CDC study states with authority. Except of course that's anthead nonsense. Is the CDC really going to claim that, for example, a teenager who buys a used car that was smoked in previously is exposing himself to a measurable danger thereby? Or that if he accepts a ride in an adult's car -- said adult having smoked a cigarette a few hours previously -- that the kid has thereby increased his risk of becoming emphysematic or developing lung cancer? It's absurd.
This isn't a defense of smoking. It's a plea for the restoration of sanity. Please, people -- how about some perspective -- and proportion?
Notice the quasi-religious aspect, too.
You can almost hear the high-pitched sermonizing of these latter day secular Elmer Gantrys. "The car is the only source of exposure for some of these children," says the CDC's Brian King. "So if you can reduce the exposure, it's definitely advantageous for health."
For liberty (and reasonableness) not so much.
As with the jihad against alcohol -- which metastasized from reasonable concern over cavalier attitudes toward drinking and driving into the absurd characterization of any drinking before driving as "drunk" driving -- smoking cigarettes anywhere, anytime, has been demonized as an evil on the order of pederasty that must be extirpated by any means necessary. It is no longer enough that smokers refrain from smoking in public areas. If there is any chance whatever that a non-smoker might catch a whiff, then it becomes a matter of public concern. Hence, smokers are already prohibited from smoking even in their own apartments or condos -- and yes, even on the steps of their own porches, too. After all, someone might be exposed to second-hand smoke.
Shortly, you will not even be permitted to smoke in your own vehicle, for the same reasons. Doesn't matter that you have the windows rolled up -- and don't have kids, for that matter. What about the poor attendant at the parking garage who might be exposed to the dangerous remnants of your anti-social choice to smoke? Or the child who might buy your ex-car three years from now? It's no exaggeration. It's depressing reality.
And it'd be comical -- if it weren't so tragic.
Peddling cigs to kids is one thing. Criminalizing adults for "exposing" a kid to a distant whiff of this morning's Lucky Strike (or last year's Lucky Strike) is quite another. The erosion of our personal space continues apace -- and it will not end until we have no personal space left - because in the minds of the collectivist thugs who control this country, there is no such thing as "personal" space. Anything you do could -- conceivably -- affect someone else. It need not be a specific, demonstrable harm -- the standard of long-gone America. Just a theoretical "risk" -- however vague, non-specific and generalized -- will do just fine. And it is going to become the all-encompassing rationale for total state control within the next 24 months, once Obamacare becomes the duly anointed "constitutional" law of the land.

[texaspokieokie]

excellent post. You are rite.

[Sooner Eclipse]

All you fatties better watch it, they're coming after you and your health insurance next. After that, maybe they'll come back around to men who put their manhood in other men's rectums & actually find an effective way to stop drugs at the border like militarizing it. After all, defeating aids is one of the main goals of the "progressive" movement.

[yermom]

i agree about seatbelts, but that's me i'm affecting

your rights to smoke stop at my nose/lungs/eyes

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But it's a ban of all tobacco.

Tell me again how smokeless tobacco products are doing anything but making Badger's poor innocent tummy queasy. And being a guy that prefers to go by the rules, I won't be able to enjoy a pinch during the game even if I maintain my own sealed container for my expectoration, police my container and ensure it ends up in an appropriate wastebin, and make sure not to spew brown goodness in the hair of the fat jackass in front of me that thinks he's cloned from Vince Lombardi's left gonad.

The smoking argument aside, that's retarded.

[StoopTroup]

Because not everyone throws out a sealed bottle of their chew. Like a lot of smokers they toss their waste down on the ground and expect that someone will come along and clean it up. Since it's human waste it makes it even nastier for the folks who have to clean it up.

If everyone was as nice a guy as you there probably wouldn't be a ban but alas, many of the folks who clean up after 86,000 people probably have a bit different view of the post game aftermath in the stands and surrounding areas.

[yermom]

But it's a ban of all tobacco.

Tell me again how smokeless tobacco products are doing anything but making Badger's poor innocent tummy queasy. And being a guy that prefers to go by the rules, I won't be able to enjoy a pinch during the game even if I maintain my own sealed container for my expectoration, police my container and ensure it ends up in an appropriate wastebin, and make sure not to spew brown goodness in the hair of the fat jackass in front of me that thinks he's cloned from Vince Lombardi's left gonad.

The smoking argument aside, that's retarded.

barring accidentally drinking from said spit cup, i'm not sure how that would affect me either way.

[8timechamps]

But it's a ban of all tobacco.

Tell me again how smokeless tobacco products are doing anything but making Badger's poor innocent tummy queasy. And being a guy that prefers to go by the rules, I won't be able to enjoy a pinch during the game even if I maintain my own sealed container for my expectoration, police my container and ensure it ends up in an appropriate wastebin, and make sure not to spew brown goodness in the hair of the fat jackass in front of me that thinks he's cloned from Vince Lombardi's left gonad.

The smoking argument aside, that's retarded.

I applaud your rule enforcement, so maybe you will offset the fact that I will continue to chew at home games. I will also continue to police my sealed container, so no worries Yermom, you will not be partaking in my chew. :)

[Mississippi Sooner]

If ya can't chew it without spittin' every 30 seconds, ya ain't man enough to be chewin' it.

[SoonerShark]

This is great. If tobacco was a new product that a company was proposing it would never be allowed on the market. It provides nothing of value and will kill you if used as directed. I suppose we could use it as an instrument for implementing the execution of death row inmates.

[badger]

This is great. If tobacco was a new product that a company was proposing it would never be allowed on the market. It provides nothing of value and will kill you if used as directed. I suppose we could use it as an instrument for implementing the execution of death row inmates.

Kind of like that energy drink that's also alcoholic that we're trying to ban because kids are getting ahold of it?

[StoopTroup]

I'll say this as I don't wish for those of you who chew to think I'm against you having the right to chew. I think you have the right to take a .45 caliber and stuff it in your mouth and pull the trigger.

I watched my Father and Uncle do surgery on Mouth, Tongue and Throat Cancer Patients for over 30 years. So many folks lost or shortened their lives due to their addiction to the chew and that was just the folks that my Father and Uncle treated. The number of folks that have been lost or surgically treated by other Surgeons is staggering.

I'll just say this....

My hope is that if you are asked to leave the Stadium if you are caught....you don't make a scene and that you don't get mad at the folks around you who might turn you in for going against the rules.

I also hope that you one day decide to try and quit. Not because it's disgusting or against OU Rules....but because it's not good for you. I'd hate to see any of you go through what I have seen so many folks go through. It was pretty hard to see it happen as I was growing up but I worked in the office for awhile as well as hung out there after School a lot when I was younger. Seeing the Families and how it affected them after the loss of a loved one really was one of the more difficult things to watch and I know my Father and Uncle hated seeing folks have to deal with Cancer post Surgery. Some were torn up by it and others took it hard but also realized that it was their loved ones choice and that they had been warned long before they got sick that they should stop and they chose to keep on chewing even though many had had pieces of their Mouth, Tongue and/or Throat removed surgically.

I hope you guys quickly decide to quit and maybe just go chew some gum.