Health officials, advocates to seek smoking ban in bars and restaurants in Oklahoma

By Tim Talley, AP
Thursday, October 29, 2009

Health officials to seek smoking ban in Oklahoma

OKLAHOMA CITY — Anti-smoking advocates called on lawmakers Thursday to make bars and restaurants in Oklahoma smoke-free by closing loopholes in the state law restricting smoking in public places.

Officials from the American Heart Association and the state Department of Health said they will support legislation next year to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, similar to a bill that died in the Oklahoma House last spring.

Oklahoma was among the first states in the nation to regulate smoking in public places in 2003. But the legislation allows smoking in separate smoking rooms in restaurants and stand-alone bars. When the bill died in the House last spring, Rep. John Trebilcock, R-Broken Arrow, chairman of the House Public Health Committee, said he was not inclined to give it a hearing because of the investment restaurants had made to comply with state smoking restrictions.

Since Oklahoma’s law went into effect, 27 other states have adopted comprehensive smoke-free laws that ban smoking in public places, said Marilyn Davidson, government relations director for the American Heart Association in Oklahoma City.

Davidson said the bill will protect restaurant and nightclub patrons from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, which she said kills 38,000 people a year and increases the risk of coronary heart disease by 25 percent to 30 percent.

“It’s just about health over money,” said Dr. Alan Blum, a family medicine professor at the University of Alabama and director of the Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society.

Blum said smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease. A report released earlier this month by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies in Washington said studies have shown a decrease in the rate of heart attacks after a smoking ban was implemented.

But some Oklahoma restaurant and nightclub owners have opposed an outright ban on smoking, claiming it would have a negative impact on their business.

“We view this as a health issue, not a private property issue,” Davidson said.

She said anti-smoking advocates are sympathetic with restaurant owners who spent thousands of dollars to build enclosed ventilated smoking rooms to comply with the 2003 law. But they are more concerned with the health of the people who work in those rooms.

Jim Hopper, president and CEO of Oklahoma Restaurant Association, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment on the proposed smoking ban.

Blum said the restaurant association is influenced by big tobacco companies that have historically opposed smoking bans and restrictions in public places.

“The fingerprints of the tobacco industry are all over them,” he said. “We want to make it much harder on restaurants that don’t care about public health.”

Blum held up an oversized image of a $5 bill, about the cost of a pack of cigarettes, and criticized opponents of smoking bans for putting profits over health interests.

“It’s all they care about. It’s their blood money,” Blum said.

Discussion
October 30, 2009: 11:12 pm

Smoking banns the real health hazard

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of “second-hand” smoke.

Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or is in fact just a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the “right” decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.

YOUR VIEW POINT
NAME : (REQUIRED)
MAIL : (REQUIRED)
will not be displayed
WEBSITE : (OPTIONAL)
YOUR
COMMENT :