A Pizza Hut in Tecumseh has a sign stenciled on the door: "No smoking due to governor." The proclamation sums up the current debate over restaurant smoking in Oklahoma. Rather than attributing the smoking ban to a law or even the Health Department, the new smoking rules are attributed to Gov. Keating himself. The message is clear: This is personal.

The State Department of Health argues that smoking regulations ensure the saftety of restaurant patrons, no differently than laws that regulate the handling and preparation of foods. The opposing arguments state that business owners should have the right to regulate what goes on in their establishments.

The regulations require restaurants with a seating capacity of 50 or more to designate themselves as all-smoking, no smoking, or provide separately ventilated areas for smokers. We do not feel that these regulations are unfair or intrusive, as they provide the best balance between the rights of businesses and the safety of patrons. The restaurant still retains rights over smoking policies. In the all-smoking establishments, it is not as though customers are issued cigarattes at the door. Those not bothered by the smoke are still able to eat at whatever restaurant they choose. However, those who do have an aversion to secondhand smoke are thusly informed and can avoid these establishments. We see no problem with this arrangement. The law does not "discriminate" against smokers any more than "no shirt, no shoes, no service."

While we agree with the new policies, we do not agree with recent lawsuits such as the one filed by the American Lung Association that claims that "all-smoking" restaurants are discriminatory.

"Discrimination" is perhaps the most loaded and personal word being thrown about in the current debate. We feel that business owners have a right to discriminate, but such a statement must be heavily qualified.

To discriminate on the basis of race, religion, nationality and/or sexual orientation is wrong and illegal. It should be. These are attributes of a person. However, smoking is not an attribute, it is an action, not unlike skateboarding. It is likely that almost every restaurant in Oklahoma with a seating capacity of 50 or more refuses to allow skateboarding. Is this discrimination? While it might be, most would argue that it is within the rights of the restaurant to prohibit it as they see fit.

In "all-skateboarding" establishments, such as any skate park, would anyone argue that those who choose to stand around are having their rights violated? As long as the status of the business is clearly understood, we cannot see how people could sue the skate park any more than they could sue a restaurant that chooses to designate itself as an all-smoking establishment.

The current rules are not unreasonable and are not discriminatory. A person's "right" to smoke is no more sacred than a right to skateboard, and we see no problem with the imposition of time, manner and place restrictions from governments and businesses. Both the Oklahoma Restaurant Association and the American Lung Association should drop their lawsuits and accusations of discrimination. Under the new rules, restaurants retain control over their policies and the public is rightfully informed. Hopefully, the state will soon be over this silly debate. This is simply an issue of business policies and is not a personal attack on smokers, nonsmokers, or anybody else.

OUR VIEW is an editorial selected and debated by the editorial board and written after a majority opinion is formed and approved by the editor. Our View is The Daily
hello there & you too