Drinking establishments that do not allow smoking are officially dead to me.

[Okla-homey]

Witness: We used to go the Kilkenny's (Irish pub on Cherry street in Tulsa) often. No more I say due to the new Tulsa city ordinance that such joints must either be non-smoking or have a smoking section with a hermetically sealed and completely separate ventilation system for the ex-convicts, felons and assorted social misfits who enjoy a ciggy with their cocktail, or, like me, a fine seegar with my cereal-malt beverage.

Therefore, McNellie's is now my official public watering hole. They are "smoke free" on the first floor but allow smoking upstairs in a separate but completely comparable area.

http://www.mcnellies.com/

that is all.

[chriscappel]

Not being able to smoke in a bar is the most ridiculous thing EVAR!

[Okla-homey]

Not being able to smoke in a bar is the most ridiculous thing EVAR!

yep, cuz drinking and smoking go together like peas and carrots. Heck, I know people who only smoke when they drink.

[OUinFLA]

Florida has an "indoor clean air" law which prohibits smoking inside ANY public building or business.

Lots of bar owners fought the law saying their business would fail. Three years in so far and the results have just been the opposite of what the bars and restaurants thought would happen. Business is actually better.

Most hard core bars put in an outdoor service area to provide a place for smokers. But, this is Florida, and you can actually sit outside to smoke and drink on most any day. Just that sometimes in the winter, you have to wear a windbreaker.

As a non-smoker, it has opened up a whole lot of places to go eat and recreate for me. The biggest disadvantage that I have found out of the law is that at most places, the smokers will congregate at the front door, and it's kinda like running the "smoke gauntlet" to get into the place.

This law even applies to the football stadiums within the state. Some of the cities which are built around the more popular beaches are about to ban smoking on the beach as well. Clearwater beach is about to pass that law soon. Their reason though is more directed at the massive amount of butts that wind up on the beach.

(I, on the other hand, only go to that beach to see the massive amount of butts that show up there during spring break)

[royalfan5]

Lincoln has had this law for over a year now. The bars screamed at first that everyone was going to go out of business, but year later everything is back to normal. Plus it's nice not smell terrible when I get home. The bars in Lincoln learned a hard lesson about democracy in the whole thing, and that is if you are in support of something a minority of people do and run a campaign that makes you look like @#$%^&, don't be shocked when you lose by 30% of the vote. The bars would have been much better off waiting until the one vote they lost by on the city council changed rather than putting it to the people.

[OUthunder]

Don't come to the Twin Cities then, especially St.Paul. It's tough to smoke a cigar anywhere but at home outside these days. :(

[Okla-homey]

I wonder how a no smoking bowling alley can possibly stay in business?;)

[Okla-homey]

Florida has an "indoor clean air" law which prohibits smoking inside ANY public building or business.

Lots of bar owners fought the law saying their business would fail. Three years in so far and the results have just been the opposite of what the bars and restaurants thought would happen. Business is actually better.

Most hard core bars put in an outdoor service area to provide a place for smokers. But, this is Florida, and you can actually sit outside to smoke and drink on most any day. Just that sometimes in the winter, you have to wear a windbreaker.

As a non-smoker, it has opened up a whole lot of places to go eat and recreate for me. The biggest disadvantage that I have found out of the law is that at most places, the smokers will congregate at the front door, and it's kinda like running the "smoke gauntlet" to get into the place.

This law even applies to the football stadiums within the state. Some of the cities which are built around the more popular beaches are about to ban smoking on the beach as well. Clearwater beach is about to pass that law soon. Their reason though is more directed at the massive amount of butts that wind up on the beach.

(I, on the other hand, only go to that beach to see the massive amount of butts that show up there during spring break)

I understand. I don't like clouds of ciggy smoke either. Just seems that folks ought to be able to have a smoking section in their place of business and if people in Non-smoking can still smell it or get offended, they could take their biz someplace else. Anyhoo, that's what I'm doing -- but in reverse. I also agree that smoke free bars prolly won't go broke in Tulsa, but I bet they end up with lots of ciggy addicts hanging out around the front door sucking 'em down between drinkies.

[Howzit]

Just seems that folks ought to be able to have a smoking section in their place of business and if people in Non-smoking can still smell it or get offended, they could take their biz someplace else.
Yeah, then I, as a non-smoker, get seated in the table that borders the smoking section. And I can't smell anything. 'Cause I'm in the Non-smoking section.

You're a runner. You shouldn't be somking anyway. It's for your own good. ;)

[yermom]

you can't even smoke by the doors at OU anymore

[Okla-homey]

Yeah, then I, as a non-smoker, get seated in the table that borders the smoking section. And I can't smell anything. 'Cause I'm in the Non-smoking section.

You're a runner. You shouldn't be somking anyway. It's for your own good. ;)

I don't inhale my seegars.

I also happen to believe the dope on "second-hand smoke" being dangerous to folks who are only casually exposed in a restaurant or bar is junk science cooked-up by anti-smoking nazis. I do, however, believe Oswald was the lone shooter.;)

[OUHOMER]

some of the local hosptials, Deconess, have a no campus smoking policy, You are not even allowed to go to your parked car and smoke. I was visiting a friend and went out to smoke. lit up and a security guard came by and said if i was going to smoke that i would have to leave. I said Ok. started the car and drove around the parking lot until i was done. He was chasing me in a little S10. When i parked I just told him i changed my mind and put it out. he was ****ed as i laughed and walked in.

I did hear that if an empolyee of the hospital smelled of smoke they were sent home to change clothes.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

New York has this ordinance. However, I think it defeats the purpose when people are smoking right by the entrance.

On another note, Mickey Mantle's allows smoking in their bar. Friday night, my friend and I were there and this dude across the room lights up the funkiest smelling cigar. I do think there should be an ordinance against cheap cigars.

[Howzit]

I also happen to believe the dope on "second-hand smoke" being dangerous to folks who are only casually exposed in a restaurant or bar is junk science cooked-up by anti-smoking nazis.

Dude, it ain't the second-hand smoke - that just **** stinks! :D

In fact, we have quit going to a Chili's right by our house. Convenient as it was on busy weeknights, the place just always smells like smoke from the bar area.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

I went to a place the other day where the smoking section was right by the hostess stand. Brilliant!

[olevetonahill]

Florida has an "indoor clean air" law which prohibits smoking inside ANY public building or business.

Lots of bar owners fought the law saying their business would fail. Three years in so far and the results have just been the opposite of what the bars and restaurants thought would happen. Business is actually better.

Most hard core bars put in an outdoor service area to provide a place for smokers. But, this is Florida, and you can actually sit outside to smoke and drink on most any day. Just that sometimes in the winter, you have to wear a windbreaker.

As a non-smoker, it has opened up a whole lot of places to go eat and recreate for me. The biggest disadvantage that I have found out of the law is that at most places, the smokers will congregate at the front door, and it's kinda like running the "smoke gauntlet" to get into the place.

This law even applies to the football stadiums within the state. Some of the cities which are built around the more popular beaches are about to ban smoking on the beach as well. Clearwater beach is about to pass that law soon. Their reason though is more directed at the massive amount of butts that wind up on the beach.

(I, on the other hand, only go to that beach to see the massive amount of butts that show up there during spring break)

Yep My friend that I helped move back to OK from there had several resturants in Fla He told me He loved the no smoking law . It helped his buisness
As you know I smoke but I have never had a prob with waiting till I was where I could smoke
Growing up every one smoked every where , course we had no idea it was that bad for you, I know it stinks so therefore I wont do it around folks who hate it
Just my 2cents
Oh and I love to see all those butts on the beatch:D

[proud gonzo]

i'm going to have to disagree with all the cancer-stick lovers here. I'm ECSTATIC about the new no-smoking thingie. I absolutely detest the smell of smoke. It makes me cough, it smells nasty, and if i've been anywhere people smoke I even have to wash my hair (sometimes twice) to get the stench out.

[BajaOklahoma]

I also happen to believe the dope on "second-hand smoke" being dangerous to folks who are only casually exposed in a restaurant or bar is junk science cooked-up by anti-smoking nazis. I do, however, believe Oswald was the lone shooter.;)

Believe what you want. It's not neccessarily that the second-hand smoke causes cancer in the non-smoker - it's the other lung diseases that are the big issue. And they are common in spouses of smokers.
Ask your wife.

[Okla-homey]

i'm going to have to disagree with all the cancer-stick lovers here. I'm ECSTATIC about the new no-smoking thingie. I absolutely detest the smell of smoke. It makes me cough, it smells nasty, and if i've been anywhere people smoke I even have to wash my hair (sometimes twice) to get the stench out.

Wussy. You could just wear a shower cap in bars you know -- or a space helmet.;)

[proud gonzo]

Wussy. You could just wear a shower cap in bars you know -- or a space helmet.;)
i think smoke would even permeate a space helmet :eek: :P

[sooneron]

A few years after the fact, I am not sure that the NYC smoking ban has had an affect on business. Being a former smoker and someone that has a butt three times a year, I don't really care, but the drop in dry cleaning is sweet. That said, there are too many bars in NY that were made for the atmosphere of smoke. McSorley's is a place that needs a haze of smoke looming in the air to add to the mystique, it's over 150 years old.
I also think that the one city that pretty much says "Welcome, don't be a whiny bitch, shut up and have a drink !" shouldn't have a namby pamby smoking ban.

[Okla-homey]

Believe what you want. It's not neccessarily that the second-hand smoke causes cancer in the non-smoker - it's the other lung diseases that are the big issue. And they are common in spouses of smokers.
Ask your wife.

Sure, maybe if I sat around all day and smoked like a chimney and she sat with me on the other end of the couch and inhaled it for forty years -- but I don't and she doesn't.

Find me data from testing conducted under controlled conditions over time which show otherwise healthy non-smoking spouses of smokers have a markedly higher incidence of lung diseases or cancer than the general population. Go on, I dare ya! I'll save you the trouble. You can't because its junk science and a myth. Its a hunch at best and because it sounds logical, our society has accepted it as holy writ.

I agree people who find tobacco smoke offensive ought to be able to go to places and not have to smell it, but dang it, stinky people who need to wash their rear-ends are offensive too and we don't have "stinky rear-end only" bars.

[OUthunder]

I don't inhale my seegars.

I also happen to believe the dope on "second-hand smoke" being dangerous to folks who are only casually exposed in a restaurant or bar is junk science cooked-up by anti-smoking nazis. I do, however, believe Oswald was the lone shooter.;)


I'll have to disagree with you on that one. If someone doesn't want to smell cigarette smoke or be exposed to something that has been scientifically proven to cause cancer, then they shouldn't have to be.

In fairness to all, if a business wants to go to a "smokers only" establishment they should be allowed to. That's where I disagree with the non-smoking zealots that want to have there cake and eat it too.

[soonerjoker]

i'm with Homey on this. they gave up trying to get smokers to quit, so
they (don't ask me "who is they") went after the non-smokers. it
was unbelievably easy to convince them that 2nd hand smoke was bad.
the worst ones are folks that used to smoke.

i don't have any problems with people in bars smoking, & i have asthma.
some folks are gonna whine about anything !!!

must admit tho, i think smoking is STUPID !!!!!
& no, i never had the habit.

[Okla-homey]

i'm with Homey on this. they gave up trying to get smokers to quit, so
they (don't ask me "who is they") went after the non-smokers. it
was unbelievably easy to convince them that 2nd hand smoke was bad.
the worst ones are folks that used to smoke.

i don't have any problems with people in bars smoking, & i have asthma.
some folks are gonna whine about anything !!!

must admit tho, i think smoking is STUPID !!!!!
& no, i never had the habit.

eggszackery. on all points, including the one that smoking is stupid. Yes, I concede my love of a fine brown hand-rolled daughter of Queen Nicotina absolutely defies logic and is therefore indefensible as a something a rational person should practice -- but so is the Oklahoma lottery.

BTW, I defy anyone to present unassailable evidence that people who occasionally encounter tobacco smoke are harmed in any way -- 'cept maybe for higher shampoo use.

[soonerjoker]

should remove all hair.

[Mjcpr]

Isn't this a state law rather than a City of Tulsa ordinance?

Or no?

[sooneron]

The worst place for smoke in Ok, is the Library in Norman. You can be there for ONE beer (mind you, I can drink beer like greased water) and walk out stinking like an ashtray.

[Okla-homey]

Isn't this a state law rather than a City of Tulsa ordinance?

Or no?

I don't know either. But I do know the injun casinos are exempt...tribal sovereignty and all...so I can still go play the slots or play blackjack and smoke 'em up heap big.;)

...and Bill LaFortune and Brad Henry can't do nuthin' about it.:D

[King Crimson]

when i worked in restaurants i used to smoke (Dunhills, the red box, only) since it's part of the "culture".....but i've quit for about 4 years now. and i'm ultra -sensitive to cig smoke....i can smell it across the street on a windy day.

HOWEVER, my understanding of "freedom" if you don't wanna go to a place with cig smoke, you don't go. you don't place negative restrictions on others. i felt that way as a smoker, and as a non-smoker.

[GottaHavePride]

The worst place for smoke in Ok, is the Library in Norman. You can be there for ONE beer (mind you, I can drink beer like greased water) and walk out stinking like an ashtray.

Yes, and it's my home away from home. And by Wednesday I'll be able to go there and not stink. Hooray! Wait, I mean

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/penguincult/_images/hooray.jpg

[sooneron]

I used to enjoy a lot more cigars when smoking was allowed. Now, I pretty much reserve them for golf or the backyard on a nice summer night/

[Rhino]

I wonder how a no smoking bowling alley can possibly stay in business?;) Bowling Green over in south OKC (next to the Crosseyed Moose) has an enclosed smoking room. The non-death-fume-inhaling experience was lovely.

[Jimminy Crimson]

I think the rule is that bars (21+ exclusively) and restaurants where receipts/sales whatever are over 50% alcohol are exempt from the 'put out yo cancer stick, beyonce!' law...

I'm a big cigar fan. Check this: for the super bowl, we went to fox & hound and ended up sitting in the 'cigar room' to watch the game. People are smoking cigs, whatever, no problem, its a bar. Around halftime, I have the chick bring me a cigar. Fire it up and all. The jokers at the table next to us (who were smoking cigs, btw) move tables.

I don't know what is wrong with some people, but if they think pipe/cigar smoke smells worse than cigarette smoke, they've got issues with their noses. Places with 'NO PIPE/CIGAR SMOKING' rules are vag's. ;)

[KABOOKIE]

Wait until those communistic liberal ninnies outlaw drinking, laughing, and trying to pick up fat chicks at the bar too! :D

[KABOOKIE]

I don't know what is wrong with some people, but if they think pipe/cigar smoke smells worse than cigarette smoke, they've got issues with their noses. Places with 'NO PIPE/CIGAR SMOKING' rules are vag's. ;)

That's a fact, Jack!!!
http://www.movieactors.com/photos/stripes155.jpeg

[Sooner_Bob]

i'm going to have to disagree with all the cancer-stick lovers here. I'm ECSTATIC about the new no-smoking thingie. I absolutely detest the smell of smoke. It makes me cough, it smells nasty, and if i've been anywhere people smoke I even have to wash my hair (sometimes twice) to get the stench out.


I'm with pg on this one . . . spend a few hours in a local casino and you'll have a new outlook on smoking.

If I didn't have to inspect those things I'd never set foot in them.

[IB4OU2]

I'm with pg on this one . . . spend a few hours in a local casino and you'll have a new outlook on smoking.

If I didn't have to inspect those things I'd never set foot in them.

The one in Perkins is like walking into a dirty ashtry with smoldering butts.......:mad:

[Sooner_Bob]

The one in Perkins is like walking into a dirty ashtry with smoldering butts.......:mad:


Yep, that's about what I smell like when I leave . . . not to mention my red eyes and sore throat.


Non-smoking laws are one of the things I miss the most about Albuquerque.

[mrowl]

the ONLY good thing that the city of dallas has done lately was the smoking ban in restaurants. Greatness.

[Harry Beanbag]

Smoking bans in restaurants = good.

Smoking bans in bars = good for some, bad for others, ridiculous for a free society.

[Mjcpr]

....or be exposed to something that has been scientifically proven to cause cancer, then they shouldn't have to be.

Best they not step outside then, they might accidentally catch a whiff of car exhaust.

Probably should avoid traffic jams and stop lights as well.

[OUthunder]

Best they not step outside then, they might accidentally catch a whiff of car exhaust.

Probably should avoid traffic jams and stop lights as well.



I take it you're a smoker? Why should others have to breathe what's slowly killing you? Driving is pretty much a neccessity if you don't have a good public transportation system, while smoking is a CHOICE!

Need vs Want

[Mjcpr]

I take it you're a smoker? Why should others have to breathe what's slowly killing you? Driving is pretty much a neccessity if you don't have a good public transportation system, while smoking is a CHOICE!

Need vs Want

Was. But that wasn't what you said, I was just pointing that out. The point was that you're going to be exposed to carcinogens every day of your life; doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get lung cancer from it.

[sooneron]

Yep, that's about what I smell like when I leave . . . not to mention my red eyes and sore throat.


Non-smoking laws are one of the things I miss the most about Albuquerque.
Dude, your location says stillwater, ANY smell is a step up!:texan:

[47straight]

Homey, did you realize - in your discriminating taste of Tulsa Irish pubs - that actual Irish pubs (in Ireland) don't allow smoking anymore?

[Okla-homey]

Homey, did you realize - in your discriminating taste of Tulsa Irish pubs - that actual Irish pubs (in Ireland) don't allow smoking anymore?

Yep, they've been socialists in Ireland ever since the Republic was established. Thankfully, pubs in the north in Ulster still allow smoking.:D

[boomersooner28]

I think ALL public buildings should be smoke free. It should be banned everywhere. Just because I don't smoke, doesn't mean I want to die beacause you do.

[Okla-homey]

I think ALL public buildings should be smoke free. It should be banned everywhere. Just because I don't smoke, doesn't mean I want to die beacause you do.

See, there you have it. Another person who has bought into the junk science that second-hand smoke kills or even shortens the life-span or is detrimental to the health of people who are exposed to it.

Think about it. If second-hand smoke was toxic enough to do any harm to people who are only casually exposed, then no one who actually, deliberately, regularly smoked would live more than a year.:eek:

No substance in the universe is so toxic as to be able to actually hurt people who breathe it for a couple hours on a Saturday night but not also be toxic enough to quickly kill (as in within a year or two) the poor smokers who are inhaling that same smoke every waking hour of their day, 365 a year

I just wish everyone would be frank enough to admit its because people don't want to smell second-hand smoke, not that it hurts anyone because there are simply no data which indicate it does anyone any harm under bar/restaurant type circumstances. nadda.

[mdklatt]

I just wish everyone would be frank enough to admit its because people don't want to smell second-hand smoke, not that it hurts anyone because there are simply no data which indicate it does anyone any harm under bar/restaurant type circumstances. nadda.

What about the employees?

[yermom]

why should they have to smell like smoke or smell smoke if they don't want to?

i'm not that sensitive to it, but sure as hell ain't gonna miss it


it's great that they have made all the poker rooms non-smoking

[Okla-homey]

why should they have to smell like smoke or smell smoke if they don't want to?

i'm not that sensitive to it, but sure as hell ain't gonna miss it


it's great that they have made all the poker rooms non-smoking

Thats fine if you don't want to smell like it, I'm happy you admit that's your beef and not that it could make you physically sick or could kill you or something equally as silly.

If the debate were framed that way, it would be a fairer representation of the facts is all I'm saying.

[yermom]

there is still the employee thing too though, they aren't just breathing it in for a couple hours on a Saturday

[sitzpinkler]

Thats fine if you don't want to smell like it, I'm happy you admit that's your beef and not that it could make you physically sick or could kill you or something equally as silly.

If the debate were framed that way, it would be a fairer representation of the facts is all I'm saying.

Second hand smoke does make me sick. I get nauseous from breathing in too much of it. Especially if I'm riding in a car with the person who is smoking. I've thrown up from it.

[mdklatt]

Thats fine if you don't want to smell like it, I'm happy you admit that's your beef and not that it could make you physically sick or could kill you or something equally as silly.


I'm just jumping in at the end so maybe this has already been covered....

If filtered cigarette smoke is bad for the smoker, how can unfiltered cigarette smoke not be bad for everyone else? If that's case, I'd recommend you cut the filters off all your cigarettes because they're going to give you cancer.

[Okla-homey]

What about the employees?

To my knowledge, the only class of employees who have ever been able to establish a plausible link to any physical harm were flight attendants back in the day you could smoke on planes. Some who routinely worked the smoking sections were found to have a slightly higher incidence of bronchial difficulties, exacerbated by the fact the ventilation systems on airliners 20 years ago were less effective and the concentration of smoke in the air was markedly higher than possible to achieve on the ground. The airlines agreed to go smokeless because it keeps the cabin interiors cleaner and thus helped lower their costs.

[Okla-homey]

I'm just jumping in at the end so maybe this has already been covered....

If filtered cigarette smoke is bad for the smoker, how can unfiltered cigarette smoke not be bad for everyone else? If that's case, I'd recommend you cut the filters off all your cigarettes because they're going to give you cancer.

Filters don't do anything but make the smoke taste better by trapping some of the tar which isn't aerosolized in the smoke anyway.

[Jimminy Crimson]

What about the employees?

I'd say just about every one of my friends who works in the food service industry smokes, so I don't think they care that much. :texan:

[Rhino]

By the way, if any of you smokers smoke in your car when your kids are in the same car, I'm going to murder you.

[sitzpinkler]

I'm just jumping in at the end so maybe this has already been covered....

If filtered cigarette smoke is bad for the smoker, how can unfiltered cigarette smoke not be bad for everyone else? If that's case, I'd recommend you cut the filters off all your cigarettes because they're going to give you cancer.

Agreed.

The fact that you're breathing in smoke at all is not going to be good on your lungs, regardless of the fact that it's coming from cigarettes. Especially with the amounts that accumulate in a bar over the course of an evening.

Have you ever seen what it's like in a chain smokers house? All the tar that accumulates over their household items is disgusting. I was working on a computer for a chain smoker and it was caked with the ****. You can't tell me that's good on your lungs.

I don't need some scientist to tell me that it's bad. It's pretty damn obvious and logical.

[soonerscuba]

We are going about this all wrong, it should be based on age, and age alone. If you have to be over 21 to get in, allow smoking unless the owner wants it non-smoking. If you can get in under 21, make it non-smoking. I don't smoke anymore, but it isn't like smokers are throwing feces, they are just trying to enjoy their night, stop being a *****.

[Mjcpr]

Second hand smoke does make me sick. I get nauseous from breathing in too much of it. Especially if I'm riding in a car with the person who is smoking. I've thrown up from it.

Oh, well your problem is that you're a *****.

:D

[Jimminy Crimson]

Oh, well your problem is that you're a *****.

:D

yeah i think his official diagnosis would be something like 'vaginitis' ;)

oh my gawd, i took a sip of beer and spit it out, it was so disgusting, how do you drink it/!?!!?!?!

[mrowl]

See, there you have it. Another person who has bought into the junk science that second-hand smoke kills or even shortens the life-span or is detrimental to the health of people who are exposed to it.

Think about it. If second-hand smoke was toxic enough to do any harm to people who are only casually exposed, then no one who actually, deliberately, regularly smoked would live more than a year.:eek:

No substance in the universe is so toxic as to be able to actually hurt people who breathe it for a couple hours on a Saturday night but not also be toxic enough to quickly kill (as in within a year or two) the poor smokers who are inhaling that same smoke every waking hour of their day, 365 a year

I just wish everyone would be frank enough to admit its because people don't want to smell second-hand smoke, not that it hurts anyone because there are simply no data which indicate it does anyone any harm under bar/restaurant type circumstances. nadda.

so my brother, who has asthma, won't get ill from being around a smoker?

[handcrafted]

Smoking bans in restaurants = good.

Smoking bans in bars = good for some, bad for others, ridiculous for a free society.

There's the most logical and fair way to handle it, and oddly enough, it's how Oklahoma is handling it come Wednesday.

My wife hates the smell of smoke, and has asthma, so it will be nice to not have to worry about where we get seated when we go out to eat. As someone mentioned, the so-called "smoking section" is pretty much a joke if it's in the same room with the same ventilation. Plus, I don't want my son exposed to it.

That being said, I enjoy a nice Arturo Fuente once in a blue moon, and if someone wants to run a 21-and-over place, not be a restaurant, and allow smoking, then so be it, and I may even visit the establishment occasionally. Oklahoma is calling these places "stand-alone taverns" and I think the food threshold is something like 40%, i.e., if you make more than 60% of your revenue from adult beverage sales, and you are 21 to enter, you can allow smoking. The restaurants can allow it in any aforementioned hermetically sealed room, if they have the cash and the architecture to build one.

Certain places around town are going to have to make decisions, esp. places with open floors like Champions, and the Coach's at the Brick (which I can almost guarantee you will go non-smoking). OTOH, places like the Library which are probably already in compliance and under the food cap can stay as-is. And, there's always the Maker's Cigar Lounge in Bricktown, which I visit a few times a year prior to Redhawks games.

The Coach's in Norman had the foresight to build its pool hall area in such a way that I think they've already got themselves covered.

The only thing that would really suck is if a place had to lay off a bunch of people in order to pay for remodeling, or to get their food service level down below the cap.

[royalfan5]

There's the most logical and fair way to handle it, and oddly enough, it's how Oklahoma is handling it come Wednesday.

My wife hates the smell of smoke, and has asthma, so it will be nice to not have to worry about where we get seated when we go out to eat. As someone mentioned, the so-called "smoking section" is pretty much a joke if it's in the same room with the same ventilation. Plus, I don't want my son exposed to it.

That being said, I enjoy a nice Arturo Fuente once in a blue moon, and if someone wants to run a 21-and-over place, not be a restaurant, and allow smoking, then so be it, and I may even visit the establishment occasionally. Oklahoma is calling these places "stand-alone taverns" and I think the food threshold is something like 40%, i.e., if you make more than 60% of your revenue from adult beverage sales, and you are 21 to enter, you can allow smoking. The restaurants can allow it in any aforementioned hermetically sealed room, if they have the cash and the architecture to build one.

Certain places around town are going to have to make decisions, esp. places with open floors like Champions, and the Coach's at the Brick (which I can almost guarantee you will go non-smoking). OTOH, places like the Library which are probably already in compliance and under the food cap can stay as-is. And, there's always the Maker's Cigar Lounge in Bricktown, which I visit a few times a year prior to Redhawks games.

The Coach's in Norman had the foresight to build its pool hall area in such a way that I think they've already got themselves covered.

The only thing that would really suck is if a place had to lay off a bunch of people in order to pay for remodeling, or to get their food service level down below the cap.
Lincoln orginally was going to do the same thing that Oklahoma is doing, however they decided to make it all inclusive because people squawked about people employed in food service losing there jobs as people worked to get under the cap. By having a line a 40% you are opening yourselves up to enforcement problems with business that are right at that line.

[1stTimeCaller]

it's going to be interesting on a few points. The first being that the ABLE folks and the State count 3.2 beer sales as a food being as 3.2 is a non-intoxicating beverage. Now, the City of Norman counts 3.2 beer sales as alcohol.

Things could have changed but I remember the City was trying to make Tim at the Red Dirt Cafe make his place 21 & up only and he wanted it to be all ages during the day. According to the State more than 50% of his sales were food and he could be all ages but the City determined his sales to be different and not enough in food sales to be all ages during the day.

Will 3.2 still be considred 'food' when coming up with the % for this new rule?

[47straight]

Yep, they've been socialists in Ireland ever since the Republic was established. Thankfully, pubs in the north in Ulster still allow smoking.:D

But that's not Ireland, that's Great Britain. :eddie:

Homey, I gotta say whether there's been a successful lawsuit or not, employees do suffer from second-hand smoke. It's an avoidable hazard.

[royalfan5]

Perhaps the best solution to this would be if everyone just switched to Skoal. Second hand chew is not a health risk, and chew smells much better than smoke. I think it would be a win/win for everyone. Chewing bandits would make easy clean-up too.

[mdklatt]

All you f'n hillbillies just need to quit drinking and smoking and you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.

:cool:

[mdklatt]

Homey, I gotta say whether there's been a successful lawsuit or not, employees do suffer from second-hand smoke. It's an avoidable hazard.

To play devil's advocate: It's also avoidable if you choose not to work in a bar, right?

[1stTimeCaller]

To play devil's advocate: It's also avoidable if you choose not to work in a bar, right?

In mdklatt's DA post you could also avoid mine collapses by not working in a mine.

[mdklatt]

In mdklatt's DA post you could also avoid mine collapses by not working in a mine.

Nobody wants a mine collapse. Some people want cigarettes in bars. Why not let some bars cater to smokers and some bars cater to non-smokers? If the smoker/non-smoker ratio of people who want to work in bars is similar to the ratio for people who want to patronize bars everything will even out.

[Hamhock]

Why can't the people who actually own the establishment decide what lawful activity can/can't take place in their building. If you don't like the smoke, don't go there.

What the hell is this, Russia?

[Okla-homey]

But that's not Ireland, that's Great Britain. :eddie:


precisely...Northern Ireland is part of the UK which protects personal freedoms. BTW, I think abortion and divorce are still illegal in the Republic.



Homey, I gotta say whether there's been a successful lawsuit or not, employees do suffer from second-hand smoke. It's an avoidable hazard.


Lawsuits have very little to do with it. The thing is, harm to non-smokers from casual exposure to second-hand smoke has never been established. Unfortunately, its accepted as fact.

[yermom]

precisely...Northern Ireland is part of the UK which protects personal freedoms. BTW, I think abortion and divorce are still illegal in the Republic.



Lawsuits have very little to do with it. The thing is, harm to non-smokers from casual exposure to second-hand smoke has never been established. Unfortunately, its accepted as fact.

define "never"...

[NormanPride]

Lawsuits have very little to do with it. The thing is, harm to non-smokers from casual exposure to second-hand smoke has never been established. Unfortunately, its accepted as fact.

It's usually taken as fact because just about all of us have been in a situation where we've been made uncomfortable by smoke. I know I have, and I consider myself having a fairly high tolerance for it. Personally, I'd be fine with it if the places that allowed smoking were held to higher air filtration standards. While I don't think the smoke really makes me at a much higher risk of cancer or anything, it is a nuisance to me and can get annoying.

[Hamhock]

Why can't people just avoid the restaraunts that allow smokers?

[1stTimeCaller]

Why can't people just avoid the restaraunts that allow smokers?

for the same reason that handicapped folks shouldn't just avoid restaurants that don't want to comply with the ADA guidelines.

[Okla-homey]

It's usually taken as fact because just about all of us have been in a situation where we've been made uncomfortable by smoke. I know I have, and I consider myself having a fairly high tolerance for it. Personally, I'd be fine with it if the places that allowed smoking were held to higher air filtration standards. While I don't think the smoke really makes me at a much higher risk of cancer or anything, it is a nuisance to me and can get annoying.

I recognize and appreciate ciggy smoke bugs people. It does me too when its too thick, but please understand, all I'm trying to say is that's different from second-hand smoke actually harming you. It doesn't -- unless you have some severe respiratory disorder, and if that's the case you probably shouldn't be in a bar anyway.;)

[mdklatt]

for the same reason that handicapped folks shouldn't just avoid restaurants that don't want to comply with the ADA guidelines.

You know, that's a valid point. Do we have a constiutional right to eat at Billy Bob's Smoky Ramp-Free Tavern? Maybe business owners should decide if the cost of ADA requirements are worth the extra business. If Billy Bob decides not to cater to asthmatic parapalegics somebody else will, right?

[NormanPride]

I recognize and appreciate ciggy smoke bugs people. It does me too when its too thick, but please understand, all I'm trying to say is that's different from second-hand smoke actually harming you. It doesn't -- unless you have some severe respiratory disorder, and if that's the case you probably shouldn't be in a bar anyway.;)

Define "harm". ;)

Seriously, though. I understand your point, and to a certain extent I agree. I'd still rather not have chemicals running through my system that I don't want there.

[1stTimeCaller]

Could the bar owners that do not wish to comply with this new law make their bar a 'private' club and charge say a $5 a year membership fee?

[Jimminy Crimson]

Could the bar owners that do not wish to comply with this new law make their bar a 'private' club and charge say a $5 a year membership fee?

Very interesting!

[NormanPride]

You know, that's a valid point. Do we have a constiutional right to eat at Billy Bob's Smoky Ramp-Free Tavern? Maybe business owners should decide if the cost of ADA requirements are worth the extra business. If Billy Bob decides not to cater to asthmatic parapalegics somebody else will, right?

I generally don't like where this is going, as I don't like discriminating against people... But this is a valid point. It's a private business, right? The problem I see is that if it's cheaper not to support ADA stuff, then nobody will. Guaranteed.

[1stTimeCaller]

I hate ciggy smoke as bad if not worse than the next guy but I think it should be up to the bar owner and ultiamately the market not the legislators to decide.

There are bars that I refuse to go see live music in because the crowd always sucks and talks through the entire set even though they paid $20 to see te show. If I owned that bar I'd kick those folks out but I don't so I just won't patronize those bars. Same with supadoopa smokey places.

[Okla-homey]

You know, that's a valid point. Do we have a constiutional right to eat at Billy Bob's Smoky Ramp-Free Tavern? Maybe business owners should decide if the cost of ADA requirements are worth the extra business. If Billy Bob decides not to cater to asthmatic parapalegics somebody else will, right?

I don't think Billy Bob would have to do much if his building predates ADA. Now, if Billy Bob renovates or builds a new place, he should make reasonable accomodations for handicapped folks -- depends on the size of his business and some other factors.

just saying.

[mdklatt]

The problem I see is that if it's cheaper not to support ADA stuff, then nobody will. Guaranteed.

Somebody will, because those places that are accessible will get all the handicap business.

[NormanPride]

Somebody will, because those places that are accessible will get all the handicap business.

Not if there's a low disabled population. If the costs of implementing/maintaining those changes > the profit generated by the business then it will never happen. Unless the business is stupid.

So then it becomes a function of when is is profitable to make your building accessible to the disabled? And that's just a bad discussion to get into.

[Okla-homey]

Define "harm". ;)

Seriously, though. I understand your point, and to a certain extent I agree. I'd still rather not have chemicals running through my system that I don't want there.

Legally actionable harm is generally defined as physical harm or harm to a person's mental health, whether temporary or permanent. However, it does not include being subjected to any force or impact that is within the limits of what is acceptable as incidental to social interaction or to life in the community.

See, in America people don't have a right to consider themselves inside a glass box thru which nothing offensive may penetrate. That's an unreasonable expectation and the courts have said so.

Problem is, anti-smoking zealots have been successful in shifting the subjective standard of what's acceptable in our society to include the expectation that we must not be casually exposed to tobacco smoke against our will -- almost completely without scientific evidence it actually harms people either physically or mentally.

Usually when that sort of thing happens, it tends to erode our freedoms.

All that to say that unless and until science shows that casual exposure to second-hand smoke actually causes physical harm or causes people to go off their rocker, I think folks just ought to chill-out about it. But that's just me. See, I think we'd all be happier and get along better if we were'nt so quick to castigate and condemn based on hearsay or junk science.

For the record, I gave up ciggys in 1996.

[NormanPride]

Legally actionable harm is generally defined as physical harm or harm to a person's mental health, whether temporary or permanent. However, it does not include being subjected to any force or impact that is within the limits of what is acceptable as incidental to social interaction or to life in the community.

See, in America people don't have a right to consider themselves inside a glass box thru which nothing offensive may penetrate. That's an unreasonable expectation and the courts have said so.

Problem is, anti-smoking zealots have been successful in shifting the subjective standard of what's acceptable in our society to include the expectation that we must not be casually exposed to tobacco smoke against our will -- almost completely without scientific evidence it actually harms people either physically or mentally.

Usually when that sort of thing happens, it tends to erode our freedoms.

All that to say that unless and until science shows that casual exposure to second-hand smoke actually causes physical harm or causes people to go off their rocker, I think folks just ought to chill-out about it. But that's just me. See, I think we'd all be happier and get along better if we were'nt so quick to castigate and condemn based on hearsay or junk science.

For the record, I gave up ciggys in 1996.

I'd agree that it's not the direction we want to take our society, but I would counter that smoke inhalation is a little different from a bump in a busy bar (hooray for alliteration). It's also not the same as a throatpunch, but you get my idea. To me, it's a lot like getting egged or something.

Red/dry/itchy eyes, coughing, etc. And add to that the fact that some people don't want weird stimulants or other random chemicals in the air. Personally, I'd treat it like we do industrial facilities and their pollution. Just hold establishments that allow smoking to higher air filtration standards, and I'd be happy.

[boomersooner28]

See, there you have it. Another person who has bought into the junk science that second-hand smoke kills or even shortens the life-span or is detrimental to the health of people who are exposed to it.

Think about it. If second-hand smoke was toxic enough to do any harm to people who are only casually exposed, then no one who actually, deliberately, regularly smoked would live more than a year.:eek:

No substance in the universe is so toxic as to be able to actually hurt people who breathe it for a couple hours on a Saturday night but not also be toxic enough to quickly kill (as in within a year or two) the poor smokers who are inhaling that same smoke every waking hour of their day, 365 a year

I just wish everyone would be frank enough to admit its because people don't want to smell second-hand smoke, not that it hurts anyone because there are simply no data which indicate it does anyone any harm under bar/restaurant type circumstances. nadda.

You're kidding right?

[boomersooner28]

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondhandsmoke/a/secondhandsmoke.htm

[mdklatt]

Problem is, anti-smoking zealots have been successful in shifting the subjective standard of what's acceptable in our society to include the expectation that we must not be casually exposed to tobacco smoke against our will -- almost completely without scientific evidence it actually harms people either physically or mentally.


There have been plenty of studies indicating that second-hand smoke is harmful, although I plead ignorance if those have been refuted.

From a common sense point of view, how can cigarette smoke only be harmful to the smoker but not anybody else who is breathing in the same stuff?

[Okla-homey]

I'd agree that it's not the direction we want to take our society, but I would counter that smoke inhalation is a little different from a bump in a busy bar (hooray for alliteration). It's also not the same as a throatpunch, but you get my idea. To me, it's a lot like getting egged or something.

Red/dry/itchy eyes, coughing, etc. And add to that the fact that some people don't want weird stimulants or other random chemicals in the air. Personally, I'd treat it like we do industrial facilities and their pollution. Just hold establishments that allow smoking to higher air filtration standards, and I'd be happy.

Fair enough.

FWIW, we love those Japanese chop-n-toss joints. That said, I always feel like I've inhaled a shrimp and a piece of steak when we get up from the grill-table.;)

[Mjcpr]

From a common sense point of view, how can cigarette smoke only be harmful to the smoker but not anybody else who is breathing in the same stuff?

I would assume it's because of the volume. I'd think a smoker would inhale MANY times the amount of smoke than would a person who occasionally breathes secondhand smoke.

Homey will be along shortly to answer your question though. :)

[Okla-homey]

There have been plenty of studies indicating that second-hand smoke is harmful, although I plead ignorance if those have been refuted.

From a common sense point of view, how can cigarette smoke only be harmful to the smoker but not anybody else who is breathing in the same stuff?

again, no substance in the universe is so toxic as to be able to actually hurt people who breathe it for a couple hours on a Saturday night but not also be toxic enough to quickly kill (as in within a year or two) the poor users who are inhaling that same product every waking hour of their day, 365 a year.

[JohnnyMack]

Quit being an inbred Okie and put yer dang Marlboro out long enough to enjoy the artery clogging fried piece of dead whatever covered with gravy.

[Okla-homey]

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondhandsmoke/a/secondhandsmoke.htm

Asserting something is linked to harm and proving it are two different things. Again, smoking is not good for people and people shouldn't smoke. That said, I refuse to concede that occasional casual exposure to second hand smoke does anyone any measurable harm and none of these studies have even come close to proving it.

I further argue that automobile exhaust is at least as potentially dangerous to people but no one says "don't you dare drive a car near my kid"...yet.

[sitzpinkler]

Legally actionable harm is generally defined as physical harm or harm to a person's mental health, whether temporary or permanent. However, it does not include being subjected to any force or impact that is within the limits of what is acceptable as incidental to social interaction or to life in the community.

See, in America people don't have a right to consider themselves inside a glass box thru which nothing offensive may penetrate. That's an unreasonable expectation and the courts have said so.

Problem is, anti-smoking zealots have been successful in shifting the subjective standard of what's acceptable in our society to include the expectation that we must not be casually exposed to tobacco smoke against our will -- almost completely without scientific evidence it actually harms people either physically or mentally.

Usually when that sort of thing happens, it tends to erode our freedoms.

All that to say that unless and until science shows that casual exposure to second-hand smoke actually causes physical harm or causes people to go off their rocker, I think folks just ought to chill-out about it. But that's just me. See, I think we'd all be happier and get along better if we were'nt so quick to castigate and condemn based on hearsay or junk science.

For the record, I gave up ciggys in 1996.

I can't believe you're trying to push the idea that breathing in smoke is not going to cause any physical problems. It's SMOKE. Smoke is not good for your lungs, period. You shouldn't need a scientist to point that out to you.

There have been plenty of studies done worldwide that support the notion that second hand smoke is bad for you. I could sit here and post links all day, but what good would it do? You're obviously intent on writing off as "junk science" anything that doesn't support your belief.

[sitzpinkler]

again, no substance in the universe is so toxic as to be able to actually hurt people who breathe it for a couple hours on a Saturday night but not also be toxic enough to quickly kill (as in within a year or two) the poor users who are inhaling that same product every waking hour of their day, 365 a year.

sounds like "junk science" to me

[Okla-homey]

I can't believe you're trying to push the idea breathing in smoke is not going to cause any physical problems. It's SMOKE. Smoke is not good for your lungs, period. You shouldn't need a scientist to point that out to you.

There have been plenty of studies done worldwide that support the notion that second hand smoke is bad for you. I could sit here and post links all day, but what good would it do? You're obviously intent on writing off as "junk science" anything that doesn't support your belief.

I agree smoke is not "good" for your lungs, but it can't hurt them if the exposure is only occasional. If that were the case the human race would have all died out during the time when everyone heated and cooked with fire.

Just find a study that was conducted under controlled conditions with a reasonable sample size composed of healthy individuals which shows that people are harmed by occasional exposure to tobacco smoke. That's all I'm asking. I'm merely maintaining that its not inherently hazardous to your health to be in a bar exposed to tobacco smoke -- unless you are there with someone else's wife.;)

[Okla-homey]

sounds like "junk science" to me

Seriously, what other toxic substance works that way? You know, be dangerous to by-standers without being so dangerous to the people who are constantly exposed to it they don't croak dramatically prematurely. Plutonium? Nope, it will kill the guy carrying it around in his pocket waaay quicker than the guy he's standing next to in a bar on a Saturday night.

Anyway, I give up. Minds are made up on both sides of this issue and that's just the way it is.

[TUSooner]

Gee, it doesn't seem that long ago when every place was a smoking place. The high school had an officially acknowledged smoking area for underage smokers. The post office where I worked had special ashtrays that clipped on to the mail sorting case. My wife woprked in a crowded office with low ceilings, and 90% of the people smoked - and I mean smoked a lot. My eyes used to start burning a block away. Although I smoke a cigarette or a cigar once in awhile, I'm not sorry to see the smoke filled rooms disappear.

[Hamhock]

When are they going to outlaw bread pudding? That stuff will kill you. Seriously, where will it stop?

[handcrafted]

Props to Homey for at least debating the issue reasonably. He's got a point. I remember as a kid having to breathe a high volume of school bus exhaust twice a day for 9 months out of the year. You think I enjoyed that? I had chronic bronchitis as a kid. No civil rights group ever came to my defense. They were too busy suing the school district to get Christmas banned.

Just goes to show that the flavor of the month is what is driving these things. Right now it's smoking. After that it will be obesity, after that who knows. Whatever will get the politicians and interest groups the most press, generate the strongest emotional response while at the same time telling people it's not okay to actually, well, you know, *think*, and generate the most cash flow...gets the attention.

[handcrafted]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Okla-homey again.

[OUthunder]

I remember going to Henry Hudson's when I still lived in Oklahoma and was at the pinnacle of my Cuban cigar smoking days. The smoke was as thick as mudd in there and I swore that they had NO air ventilation. When you walked out all you wanted to do was go home and take a shower for an hour and throw in an extra cup of detergent for your clothes.

Good times.

[JohnnyMack]

How about, "I don't wanna smell like **** because you're an addict and choose to inflict it on me while I eat" as an argument? Bars are one thing, restaurants another. I've smoked on and off for 15 years and still think smoking in a restaurant is repulsive.

People who argue for smoking in a restaurant are coelecanths. Evolve already.

[NormanPride]

How about, "I don't wanna smell like **** because you're an addict and choose to inflict it on me while I eat" as an argument? Bars are one thing, restaurants another. I've smoked on and off for 15 years and still think smoking in a restaurant is repulsive.

People who argue for smoking in a restaurant are coelecanths. Evolve already.

Why do you hate Madagascar?

[mdklatt]

I would assume it's because of the volume. I'd think a smoker would inhale MANY times the amount of smoke than would a person who occasionally breathes secondhand smoke.



Is tobacco smoke something that is only toxic above a certain threshold? Or is it something that any exposure to will cause harmful effects?

Can we all agree that smoking is bad for the smoker? If so, it's not much of a stretch to think that it might be bad for anybody who is exposed to it for a significant amount of time. Smoking might be just an annoyance issue for restaurant/bar customers, but it has to be a health issue for employees.


Here is something from the Mayo Clinic, which I would consider to be a reputable source:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023



Experts believe that secondhand smoke is to blame for roughly 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year in the United States. Some research indicates that people exposed to a spouse's cigarette smoke for several decades are about 20 percent more likely to have lung cancer. Those who are exposed long-term to secondhand smoke in the workplace or social settings may increase their risk of lung cancer by about 25 percent.

[Stoop Dawg]

I'm with the "I don't care if it's harmful or not, it smells like *** and I don't want to be around it" camp on this one.

[47straight]

precisely...Northern Ireland is part of the UK which protects personal freedoms. BTW, I think abortion and divorce are still illegal in the Republic.

Lawsuits have very little to do with it. The thing is, harm to non-smokers from casual exposure to second-hand smoke has never been established. Unfortunately, its accepted as fact.


Nice of you to forget to mention the fact that certain christian faiths can't grow up to be prime minister. But by god, you can smoke during an abortion during a pub visit with your lover and get a no-fault divorce! ;)

We've got several people on this board with claims that second-hand smoke makes them physically ill. Are they liars?

Answer my other law related post, by the way. This thread is taking up too much of your attention.

[Okla-homey]

We've got several people on this board with claims that second-hand smoke makes them physically ill. Are they liars?


Of course not. I can understand how tobacco smoke may make some people nauseous. Seeing blood and guts makes me physically sick but the sight does me no harm. Smelling other people's really rank body odor can make me physically ill, but it doesn't hurt me either.

That's the difference.

I'm content to accept some people just think it smells like crap and disgusts them. That's a subjective call and is their right.

I just find it an interesting cultural development that second hand tobacco smoke has been demonized far beyond its ability to hurt non-smokers in order to make it socially unacceptable. In fact, people who smoke around their kids could be considered child abusers in some quarters today. Just in my lifetime, I've seen society go from "smoking kills" which is scientifically indisputable to "just occasionally being around people while they smoke kills" which isn't.

[Stoop Dawg]

Of course not. I can understand how tobacco smoke may make some people nauseous. Seeing blood and guts makes me physically sick but the sight does me no harm. Smelling other people's really rank body odor can make me physically ill, but it doesn't hurt me either.

That's the difference.

I'm content to accept some people just think it smells like crap and disgusts them. That's a subjective call and is their right.

I just find it an interesting cultural development that second hand tobacco smoke has been demonized far beyond its ability to hurt non-smokers in order to make it socially unacceptable. In fact, people who smoke around their kids could be considered child abusers in some quarters today. Just in my lifetime, I've seen society go from "smoking kills" which is scientifically indisputable to "just occasionally being around people while they smoke kills" which isn't.

Just be careful not to use too broad a brush. There are certainly a few individuals where second hand smoke *can* cause physical harm. Those already suffering from athesma or other breathing problems would be a good example. I'm not going to argue that they represent a large enough group to start passing laws, but they are out there. So while it's probably not fair to universally say "second hand smoke kills", it's probably not fair to universally say "second hand smoke poses no risk to anyone - ever". Different people have different reactions.

[BajaOklahoma]

Homey,
Did you know that asthma kills 10,000+ people/year? There are many asthmatics very sensitive to smoke - if their asthma gets bad enough, it could kill them. And that could be from a single exposure to smoke.

Second hand smoke articles:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
Favorite quote form the NCI article:
In 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that there is sufficient evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer in humans and classified it as a Group A carcinogen (2, 6). In 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) formally listed secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen in The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 10th Report on Carcinogens.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023
More than 4,000 chemicals make up the haze. At least 60 of the chemicals in a puff of smoke are carcinogenic, meaning they may cause cancer.
Some of the components found in tobacco smoke that are known to cause cancer or are suspected to be carcinogenic include:
Formaldehyde
Arsenic
Cadmium
Benzene
Ethylene oxide
Here are a few other chemicals in tobacco smoke that might sound familiar, along with their effects:
Ammonia — irritates your lungs
Carbon monoxide — hampers breathing by reducing oxygen in your blood
Methanol — toxic when breathed or swallowed
Hydrogen cyanide — interferes with proper respiratory function

There are many more articles out there - those happen to be the first two I came across. I was an Oncology Certified Nurse for many years. I know what I saw in our practice. I know what the NCI, NIH, CDC and ACS, along with Oncology journals, have published from studies.

If you were talking about a single exposure during a lifetime, that would possibly be different (except for the severe asthmatic).
My parents smoked when I was little - probably the reason my allergies and asthma is so bad. It is irresponsible for parents to smoke around their kids. Abusive if they have a child with respiratory issues? IMO, yes.

[JohnnyMack]

People who smoke in a restaurant are trash. There, I said it. I judged.

Smoking in a bar is one thing, but smoking in a place where food is served is skanky.

[Okla-homey]

Homey,
Did you know that asthma kills 10,000+ people/year? There are many asthmatics very sensitive to smoke - if their asthma gets bad enough, it could kill them. And that could be from a single exposure to smoke.


People with asthma so severe a single exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke could kill them? That is some severe asthma.:eek: Question: would the smoker then be guilty of manslaughter? Answer: gosh I hope not, because for one thing, anyone with asthma that bad has no business being out in public.



More than 4,000 chemicals make up the haze. At least 60 of the chemicals in a puff of smoke are carcinogenic, meaning they may cause cancer.
Some of the components found in tobacco smoke that are known to cause cancer or are suspected to be carcinogenic include:
Formaldehyde
Arsenic
Cadmium
Benzene
Ethylene oxide
Here are a few other chemicals in tobacco smoke that might sound familiar, along with their effects:
Ammonia — irritates your lungs
Carbon monoxide — hampers breathing by reducing oxygen in your blood
Methanol — toxic when breathed or swallowed
Hydrogen cyanide — interferes with proper respiratory function


You know, I'm no petroleum engineer d00d, but I bet all that stuff is present in engine exhaust. I bet some of it is present when you fire up your charcoal grill too. In fact, I also bet most if not all of that stuff is present in lots of industrial smoke.The thing is, the concentrations are so miniscule that they simply pose no substantial risk to the vast majority of folks. Remember, human life expectancy in developed countries continues to increase each decade despite peoples' exposure to the above "witches brew" in all its forms.




If you were talking about a single exposure during a lifetime, that would possibly be different (except for the severe asthmatic).
My parents smoked when I was little - probably the reason my allergies and asthma is so bad. It is irresponsible for parents to smoke around their kids. Abusive if they have a child with respiratory issues? IMO, yes.

I agree, people probably shouldn't smoke around their kids if for no other reason it sets a bad example. I also agree that smoking around a sick child, or anyone who is ill, is dumb and inconsiderate. I also concede that smoking around childeren whose pre-existing respiratory issues are made worse by the exposure is horrible.

My old man chain-smoked in our home after he got home from work when I was a kid. I realize we are a tiny sample, but my mom, me and my siblings are all fine -- respiratorily-speaking.

[Harry Beanbag]

Is living here better or worse than going to a bar for a couple of hours?

http://home.att.net/~larvaluebug/smog.jpg

[mrowl]

People with asthma so severe a single exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke could kill them? That is some severe asthma.:eek: Question: would the smoker then be guilty of manslaughter? Answer: gosh I hope not, because for one thing, anyone with asthma that bad has no business being out in public.



its not a matter of severe asthma, its the trigger. They just need that small of a trigger to set off an attack, and if the worst happens, they could die.

and...

http://blesius.org/images/projects-plastination.jpg

[Okla-homey]

its not a matter of severe asthma, its the trigger. They just need that small of a trigger to set off an attack, and if the worst happens, they could die.

and...

http://blesius.org/images/projects-plastination.jpg

Oh I absolutely agree smoking is bad for you. I just don't believe second-hand smoke is as dangerous as popular culture believes it is.

[mrowl]

Oh I absolutely agree smoking is bad for you. I just don't believe second-hand smoke is as dangerous as popular culture believes it is.

I think you said that back on page 1... ;)

[Okla-homey]

I think you said that back on page 1... ;)

yep, but see the more I repeat it the more people will believe it. That's how this stuff works.;)

[JohnnyMack]

Smoking in a restaurant = Trashy.

Smoking in a bar = Fine.

Food and cigarette smoke don't mix.

[Mjcpr]

yep, but see the more I repeat it the more people will believe it. That's how this stuff works.;)

It's not working here. :D

[C&CDean]

I haven't read the thread.

Here's my opinion:

I ****ing hate cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke. I don't want anybody who smokes them to stop unless they want to - I just want them to stop it around me.

It's offensive as hell. If I lit up my dirty drawers right next to your table when you're eating, you'd be ****ed. So don't light up your rolled up weeds and paper near me. It ain't your right. I very strongly support this law, and enjoy having some adult beverages in a smoke-free environment. It rocks my world.

And if you're one of those losers who has to smoke when you drink then all I can say is "you're a loser." Especially if you smoke Marlboro Lights. What's the ****ing point? All you're doing is stinking up my space. Cigar smoker? Good, go the **** outside. I don't begrudge anybody a good cigar, I just don't care to get all nauseous smelling it in enclosed surroundings. Hell, I smoke a cigar on very special ocassions (OU's last NC, etc.) but I wouldn't dream of lighting one up in a closed room with other people there. It's rude.

Finally, if you're still smoking in 2006, you're a ****ing idiot. $5 a pack. Cancer. Stink. Laws. Why do it? Quit.

[Mjcpr]

I just don't care to get all nauseous smelling it in enclosed surroundings.

Should've read the thread. Then you'd know you were the second ***** to post in it.

:D

[C&CDean]

Should've read the thread. Then you'd know you were the second ***** to post in it.

:D

Alright, let me rephrase it. "I just don't want to have to kick your narrow *** for lighting up in my presence."

[soonerjoker]

good post CNC.

i think the danger of 2nd-hand smoke is vastly overstated, but smoking
is stupid.

i have asthma, have had it for most of 50 years. smoke doesn't bother me
that much. i mostly agree with Homey. sitzpinkie is a whiney wuss.

[Mjcpr]

sitzpinkie is a whiney wuss.

http://www.planet-familyguy.com/pfg/images/characters/mort_tn.jpg


;)

[soonerjoker]

i worded that wrong. i apoligize.

[Rhino]

I will still murder anyone that smokes in the car while their child is in the same car.

It will be brutal.

[OUthunder]

I will still murder anyone that smokes in the car while their child is in the same car.

It will be brutal.


Word and I've seen it a few times recently and the kid is in the back gagging.

[Mjcpr]

If you start smoking around them when they're infants, they're used to it by the time they're up for car rides.

[Harry Beanbag]

If you start smoking around them when they're infants, they're used to it by the time they're up for car rides.


and trips to the bar.

[OUthunder]

If you start smoking around them when they're infants, they're used to it by the time they're up for car rides.


That's refreshing to hear, thanks.

[Mjcpr]

Not as refreshing as a cigarette right after a bottle of formula I'll bet.

[slickdawg]

I haven't read the thread.

Here's my opinion:

I ****ing hate cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke. I don't want anybody who smokes them to stop unless they want to - I just want them to stop it around me.

It's offensive as hell. If I lit up my dirty drawers right next to your table when you're eating, you'd be ****ed. So don't light up your rolled up weeds and paper near me. It ain't your right. I very strongly support this law, and enjoy having some adult beverages in a smoke-free environment. It rocks my world.

And if you're one of those losers who has to smoke when you drink then all I can say is "you're a loser." Especially if you smoke Marlboro Lights. What's the ****ing point? All you're doing is stinking up my space. Cigar smoker? Good, go the **** outside. I don't begrudge anybody a good cigar, I just don't care to get all nauseous smelling it in enclosed surroundings. Hell, I smoke a cigar on very special ocassions (OU's last NC, etc.) but I wouldn't dream of lighting one up in a closed room with other people there. It's rude.

Finally, if you're still smoking in 2006, you're a ****ing idiot. $5 a pack. Cancer. Stink. Laws. Why do it? Quit.

Man, that's a thing of beauty. I concur with every single word of it!

[Pricetag]

People who smoke in a restaurant are trash. There, I said it. I judged.
I'm with you. Those are the most pathetic of the addicts, IMO. A meal takes what, 30, 45 minutes? Are you telling me you can't make it that long without a smoke? Weak.

I don't care if second hand smoke is deadly or not. Like others have said, the smoke is offensive no matter what, and it blows my mind that people can be so inconsiderate as to subject everyone around them to their smoke without a thought.

It's your habit, and your responsibility to deal with it accordingly. Take it outside, and when you're done, properly dispose of what's left over.

[handcrafted]

Alright, let me rephrase it. "I just don't want to have to kick your narrow *** for lighting up in my presence."

So I'm guessing I won't be running into you at Maker's? :D

[C&CDean]

So I'm guessing I won't be running into you at Maker's? :D

What is "Maker's?? If it's one of those yuppy-faggot-punkass-smoke-on-the-golf-course cigar shops then you're right.

[Veritas]

yuppy-faggot-punkass-smoke-on-the-golf-course cigar shops

Lawd how I've missed the SO. :D

[handcrafted]

What is "Maker's?? If it's one of those yuppy-faggot-punkass-smoke-on-the-golf-course cigar shops then you're right.

HA!!! Totally the opposite.

http://www.makersokc.com/

[C&CDean]

Y'all need to go check out Tommy Castro there. March 16. Since it's a smoking joint, I probably won't go, but Tommy & band are very good.

[sitzpinkler]

good post CNC.

i think the danger of 2nd-hand smoke is vastly overstated, but smoking
is stupid.

i have asthma, have had it for most of 50 years. smoke doesn't bother me
that much. i mostly agree with Homey. sitzpinkie is a whiney wuss.


I whined where?

You can bite me, pal. I said nothing very different from what you're complimenting Dean for having said.

[NormanPride]

I whined where?

You can bite me, pal. I said nothing very different from what you're complimenting Dean for having said.

Yeah, but you weren't really clever and your lack of well-placed cuss words rates your post more on the "wussy" end of the scale.

The scale goes from "wussy" to "Dean".

[handcrafted]

Yeah, but you weren't really clever and your lack of well-placed cuss words rates your post more on the "wussy" end of the scale.

The scale goes from "wussy" to "Dean".

And Dean goes to 11. :D


There's a fine line between clever and wussy.

[Okla-homey]

Alright, let me rephrase it. "I just don't want to have to kick your narrow *** for lighting up in my presence."

Spoken like a true ex-smoker. winky-winky-smiley-smiley...and don't deny it. You could not have been a heterosexual paratrooper back in the day and not be a cig smoker.

[handcrafted]

Spoken like a true ex-smoker. winky-winky-smiley-smiley...and don't deny it. You could not have been a heterosexual paratrooper back in the day and not be a cig smoker.

Those guys figgered that Charlie would kill them before the cigs did, anyways.

[sitzpinkler]

I agree smoke is not "good" for your lungs, but it can't hurt them if the exposure is only occasional. If that were the case the human race would have all died out during the time when everyone heated and cooked with fire.

Just because it doesn't kill you doesn't mean it isn't harmful. Again, breathing smoke into your lungs at all is harmful to them. Smoke in your lungs is never a good thing, whether it's second hand or first hand. I'm not being drastic and saying your lungs are going to start bleeding and your definitely going to die of cancer from it, but it is definitely not good on your lungs to inhale smoke.

[Mjcpr]

I whined where?

You can bite me, pal. I said nothing very different from what you're complimenting Dean for having said.

Actually, I think it was me who first said you were whining....or being a *****. But I was mostly kidding.

SoonerJoker is just an innocent bystander.

;)

[C&CDean]

Spoken like a true ex-smoker. winky-winky-smiley-smiley...and don't deny it. You could not have been a heterosexual paratrooper back in the day and not be a cig smoker.

20 years of being a butt addict. Two+ packs a day. Started with Camel straights, then moved on to Kools cause I liked the menthol kick and I could sell them for $1 a pack to the brothas. Ain't it funny that $1 a pack back then almost got me into a couple fights for "rippin' the brothas off."

Smoked cigars just like cigs, and also dipped. Hell, I've had a lip full of Skoal, my jaw full of Redman, a plug of Day's Work, and a Kool filter king all going simultaneously. Washing it down with an Olympia or Falstaff.

So, if I could quit, anybody can. 1987. Gave up tobacco, weed, coke, acid, PCP, speed, and assorted other drugs all on the same day. Life is grand.

[FaninAma]

So is farting in bars OK?

[handcrafted]

So is farting in bars OK?

Sit next to me and find out.

[C&CDean]

So is farting in bars OK?

In your case? Hell no.

[Okla-homey]

20 years of being a butt addict. Two+ packs a day. Started with Camel straights, then moved on to Kools cause I liked the menthol kick and I could sell them for $1 a pack to the brothas. Ain't it funny that $1 a pack back then almost got me into a couple fights for "rippin' the brothas off."

Smoked cigars just like cigs, and also dipped. Hell, I've had a lip full of Skoal, my jaw full of Redman, a plug of Day's Work, and a Kool filter king all going simultaneously. Washing it down with an Olympia or Falstaff.

So, if I could quit, anybody can. 1987. Gave up tobacco, weed, coke, acid, PCP, speed, and assorted other drugs all on the same day. Life is grand.

Remember those little packs of five cigs and "tropical" matches that were packed with C-rats? Those were glorious days bro!

[proud gonzo]

hmm... regarding second hand smoke, I would much rather breathe smoke that's already been filtered through someone else's lungs. There's probably not a WHOLE lot left in it other than stank.

What ****es me off is when you go to a restaurant and a guy at the next table over has a cigarette just burning and wafting it's nastiness in my general direction. that's just freaking rude. if you're going to smoke, smoke. if you're going to just sit there, put out the damn cigarette.

[C&CDean]

Remember those little packs of five cigs and "tropical" matches that were packed with C-rats? Those were glorious days bro!

Lucky Strikes and Pall Malls in the older ones, then Salems, Benson&Hedges, and Marlboros in the newer ones. Waxy matches, round cans of soda crackers, fruit cake that would constipate an elephant, and Beanie Weanies with over an inch of orange grease on top.

On a sidenote, the little squares of toilet paper made pretty decent rolling papers.......

[Pricetag]

So is farting in bars OK?
I'll be consitent and say "no."

I'm still pretty juvenile about farts and the like. I'll play the fart game around family and friends, as long as I know they won't get offended by it.

But I don't fart in public because it's generally considered socially unacceptable. It's disgusting for those who have to smell it, and embarrassing to me if someone finds out that I did it.

A motivational speaker named Javon Thompson came to my high school in the early '90s, and compared smoking to farting.

"Do you mind if I smoke? I have Marlboro."

"Nah, do you mind if I fart? I have Taco Bell."

[skycat]

On a sidenote, the little squares of toilet paper made pretty decent rolling papers.......

So what did that leave for you to wipe your backside with?

[NormanPride]

So what did that leave for you to wipe your backside with?

The crushed spirits of their enemies?

[skycat]

The crushed spirits of their enemies?

Ewww. That sounds kind of messy.

[NormanPride]

Spirits are generally considered very sanitary. But then again, who knows what kind of spirits you'll get over in them foreign places.

[FaninAma]

Sit next to me and find out.

So is that a yes or a no? Should I be upwind or downwind?

[Stoop Dawg]

then moved on to Kools cause I liked the menthol kick

Kools? You smoked cloves too, right?

You're so precious!

;)

[C&CDean]

Kools? You smoked cloves too, right?

You're so precious!

;)

Kools = brotha smokes.

Cloves = semen lover smokes.

Huge difference. Huge.

[JohnnyMack]

1tc smokes brothas.

Dean loves to smoke semen pole.

Huge difference. Huge.

I don't get the difference, you both sound like glory hole all-stars to me. :eddie:

[Okla-homey]

You know, I've been around here a while. Several thousand posts. Never been put in the penalty box...even though I've posted some stuff that was prolly ban-worthy. So whats the secret? I've never deliberately tweaked Deano!;)

[C&CDean]

Do not attempt to tread on the sticky floor that JM walks. He gets "special" consideration - you know, cause of the "handicap."

I've spent many a couple seconds engaged in conversation with the creator over that boy. I say "Lord, why couldn't you have given the boy a penis?" The Lord always says back "Johnny Mack is just my idea of a joke. You know, a human punchline? I may be the almighty, but I do have a sense of humor. Besides, only men get a penis my son." I say "but did you have to make him a flaming liberal pinkozoid too?" And He says "all faggots are liberal flamers my son."

I can't argue with that.

[Pricetag]

So what did that leave for you to wipe your backside with?
I'm pretty sure all the military latrines are equipped with bidets, aren't they?