Rebecca Watkins, a microbiology pre-dental sophomore, has been a smoker for four years. Though she acknowledges smoking is a bad addiction, she thinks the State Board of Health's push for a smoking ban in restaurants takes it too far.
"They already banned smoking in airplanes, and now they want to ban it from restaurants," Watkins said with great concern. "I think I should have the right to go into a restaurant and smoke cigarettes without feeling persecuted."
The latest battle for smokers has taken the form of smoking regulations in restaurants all across the country from California to New York, as well as Oklahoma. But the issue has proven to be a very complex one that includes everything from the rights of business owners to public health issues, and it seems the struggle is far from over.
In May 2002, State Rep. Ray Vaughn, R-Edmond, and Sen. Ben Robinson, D-Muskogee, proposed a bill to ban all smoking from restaurants, but the new law would not impact bars that serve only minimal amounts of food or all-smoking restaurants. Under the provisions of the new law, restaurants could only allow smoking in separate, self-ventilated rooms.
Before the ban, legislators had passed a law that banned smoking at the state capitol, but Vaughn did not think officials had gone far enough.
"I believe the people of Oklahoma don't want to dine in clouds of smoke," Vaughn said in a press release in May 2002. "This legislation will take care of the problem."
Gov. Frank Keating said he would be happy to sign the bill. In June 2002, Keating, with the support of the State Board of Health, signed the bill to put the smoking ban into effect.
While non-smokers breathed a sigh of relief, restaurateurs openly complained that the prohibition would be bad for business. Not even one day after the ban went into effect, two Sapulpa businesses, Freddie's Barbecue and Steakhouse and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1320, with the support of the Oklahoma Restaurant Association , sued the state in Creek County to block the rules, which require large restaurants with non-smoking sections to enclose and ventilate rooms where smoking is allowed.
"We're a non-smoking establishment and I'm a non-smoker," said Freddie's Barbecue and Steakhouse owner Ed Slyman to Ardmore reporters. "It's not a smoking or a non-smoking issue, it's the way it was done and the cost of it." Slyman said it would cost $10,000 for him to install new ventilation into his restaurant.
Slyman and his lawyers convinced State District Court Judge Don Thompson to issue a restraining order, which would prevent Keating and the State Board of Health from enforcing the new smoking rules.
The restraining order stated the court found the plaintiffs' evidence clearly showed the plaintiffs' businesses would be irreparably damaged by the defendants' enforcement of the smoking ban.
After the ruling, the State Board of Health appealed the decision and asked the case be moved to federal court. Their appeal was denied. The U.S. Court of Appeals called the health department's appeal frivolous and without merit.
Despite the unsuccessful battle, the State Board of Health vowed to continue the fight against smoking in restaurants. In an October press release, the State Board of Health called the battle a fight against Big Tobacco and stressed the ORA's acknowledgment that it received financial and legal support from Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
While the State Board of Health calls it a fight against Big Tobacco, the ORA and supporters insist it has nothing to do with Big Tobacco.
"This is not about smoking or non-smoking," said Robert Manfield, an ORA member and supervisor of The Polo Grill restaurant in Tulsa. "We just think it should be up to business operators to choose whether to be a smoking restaurant or not."
Even though it is now up to the business operators whether to have smoking and/or non-smoking sections, the media brought so much attention to the brief smoking ban that some businesses felt the pressure to go smoke-free.
Sean Choit, manager of The Rib Crib in Norman, said he thinks the switch to non-smoking has had a negative effect on business.
"It has affected our sales," Choit said. "You don't have smoking, and that sends smokers elsewhere."
Despite the complaints, The Journal of Public Health Management and Practice published a study conducted by The Substance Abuse Policy Research Program that indicated the opposite.
The study was based on the taxable meal receipts submitted by restaurants to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue before and after the imposition of local smoke-free ordinances in the state. The study showed that, on average, restaurant revenue in smoke-free towns rose four percent. Restaurant revenues in the communities that did not severely restrict smoking over the same period of time rose only two percent.
Studies show smoke-free policies will not only benefit the public economically, but also in terms of health. According to the National Cancer Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency released a risk assessment report in December 1992 that classified second-hand smoke as a known human carcinogen. This category is reserved for only the most dangerous cancer-causing agents.
The EPA reports estimate second-hand smoke is responsible for lung cancers in several thousand non-smokers each year. Exposure to second-hand smoke is also linked to severe respiratory problems in infants and young children.
Even the biggest tobacco giant in America, the Philip Morris Cos., posted on their Web site that the company thinks second-hand smoke should be regulated in public places.
With new information coming out daily about the negative effects of second-hand smoke on others, non-smokers think a smoking ban is long overdue.
"It's about time for a change," said Elaine Jensen, who is a caretaker of a cancer patient and an outspoken anti-smoker. "I should be entitled to have a decent meal without being subjected to someone's nasty cigarette smoke."
hello there & you too