Like the title says. I'm beyond ticked at my governor, Republican Mary Fallin. A few months ago she issued an Executive Order banning the use of all tobacco products on state property, including in your vehicles parked on state property. We are not just talking about state employees, but ANYONE on ANY state property, including Wildlife Management Areas, lakes, parks, fairgrounds...everything!

I don't care if tobacco is bad for you or not. I don't care if you use tobacco or not. Who the heck does she think she is making an executive order like this?

I'm all for not imposing things on others, and I think having a designated tobacco use area outside away from entrances to buildings is plenty fair. This is a common sense approach that accomadates pretty much everyone, but what she has done crosses the line.

Now I'm having a dilemma. I am 39 years old and have always been a registered Republican and voted as such. I have to be honest, at this time I am seriously considering voting democtatic in the next Oklahoma governor's race just to send a message! Again, who the heck does she think she is????

Next, she's gonna take your sodi pops.

What's the feed back from the rest of the people in the state?
Just go buy a box of Nicotine gum when your on State property, until the next election.

Yep! And before long your daughters and then your grandaughters will required to get on birth control the moment they begin puberty so they won't got pregnant and pass that cost on to taxpayers.

I've heard very little feedback on this, which amazes me. It shouldn't, but it does.

I guess it won't be long now until we all start calling each other "comrade."

that was a stupid move on her part, but she does a great many good works on illegal immigration and SD/Castle Doctrine, Pro gun laws.

So She's not all bad.

Gunner

[bleep] her. That was beyond a stupid move on her part, and demonstrates the glaring hypocricy within the mainstream Republican party. Car exhaust is also bad for us, is it not? Whatcha wanna bet she would strongly oppose any new legislation or EPA requirements that added any additional cost to the manufacture of cars in order to reduce emmissions!!!!

I understand your anger and frustration OkBowman, but i would rather swallow my snuff and have the freedom to keep a pistol in my pocket to protect my family and others should the need arise.

And to do so in a state without the fear of prosecution.

Gunner

I understand that. Of course I consider the 2nd Amendment paramount. However, if we allow "small" freedoms to be taken away how long can we expect to have the 2nd Amendment rights we now have?

No reason not to have both freedoms. miles

You are correct, and she needs to immediately let it be known this kind of behavior will cost her votes in the next election, and to refrain from, or better yet 86 this BS statute, and stick to important issues that matter.

Gunner

As a country we have moved progressively left over the last 40 years. Why is this? There has been a back and forth shift in power between the Republicans and the Demcorats. Of course the Democrats always take things left, but why haven't Republicans move things back to the right when they get into power? It's because of chit like this. We all know that the Democrate party has moved left, but crap like this demonstrates how the Republican party has too. Therefore the center has shifted to the left, and we all suffer the consequences, both economically and socially, with an ever pervasive and meddling government, with the ever subsequent eroding of freedoms and liberties.

Blind support of the "R", no matter their record, is why we gets what we gets so often.

Well, maybe ya need to start thinking about moving to Chicago.

And it's the general pussification of the American male, the liberals of all political affiliates, and the bleeding heart whine-bags are precisely the reason we haven't dropped a 30 pack of Truman bombs and put an end to these BS wars, and sent the proper message to the rest of the world,

DONT F-CK WITH THE U.S.A.

Gunner

I hope you call her office and give her the same rant as you're giving here.. SHE needs to hear it - from you, and everyone else who's offended by it..

Get enough people riled up and maybe she'll get the hint and rescind the order..

I have made up my mind. She will either 86 it or I will vote for her opposition, WHOEVER THAT IS, come next election. PERIOD! It's that simple. I will not support someone who professes being a conservative and is adamantly opposed to a big meddling governement, yet is so quick to take away an individual freedom, especially throught he use of an Executive Order (GEEZE...even the name of that make me tense up...."order." Who does she thinks she is issuing me, or anyone for that matter, an order)! I will send the message that this type of government interference will not be tolerated, even by Republicans. If Republicans are hell bent on taking freedoms away too then I'd just assume vote Democrat and speed up this conversion to socialism instead of dragging it out like we're doing now!

That is happening today....through the use phone calls, letters, and emails.

I love Oklahoma, have many relatives there, spend a significant amount of time there and in fact, will be there tomorrow. Y'alls politics down there are superior to Kansas'. I don't agree with Fallin. All that said, I get tired of smelling somebody's cigarette when I go someplace. If I get our lawn chairs positioned at my son's ball game and then some scrounger comes up and fires up a cancer stick, I get to do it all over again in an inferior place, if I can even find one. Secondhand smoke has been linked to cancer, so it is not all just not wanting to smell some dude's rancid [bleep] he's sucking on.

Again, I disagree, but lots of smokers are pretty aggressive, thinking you want to inhale their carcinogens.

I realize tobacco may be pretty important to a lot of folks, but how is voting to send a message on that smallish issue any different than a Paul voter who can't stomach Romney voting for a Libertarian or some such to send a message? To me the only difference is degree and the Paulista has a lot more to gripe about than the Okie Governor's stance on this one issue.

I'll be voting for Romney come November because I have to Cowboy up and do the best thing for our country and our freedoms.

I agree, but there are lots of so called orders I do not follow, for example: no tobacco use on these premises, no weapons in the courthouse, wear your seat belt, all bodies of water, are waters of the state [BULLSH-T] I dug the [bleep]' holes these waters are mine and they can FOAD if they think any different.

Gunner

How about a designated smoking area? Would that not accomodate most everyone? As far as second hand smoke goes, yes, it has been linked with cancer. But let's be realistic for just a moment. Occassionally passing someone outside and catching a whiff of cigarett smoke will not increase your chance of getting cancer. Living with a smoker who smokes in the house and constantly inhaling second hand smoke would, but it's totally unreasonable to think the occasional whiff would. Thinking that is not using any common sense, which has become a pervasive problem in our country. Examples of this include not allowing LEO's to ask for documentation when confronting suspected illegal immigrants, not allowing identification to be asked for when voting, and not allowing kids to be spanked.

Why would you do anything other than ignore her ban?

Smoke all ya want! Screw them!

I would take it through the courts.

This seems like an overstep of Power. Though, I admit that I know nothing about Oklahoma law.

Is this legal to make an executive order like this instead of going through the legislature to make it a law?

I mean, can she ban pants on all State Property?

I understand this, and I too will vote for Romney. However, therin lies the reason our country has shifted so far to the left over the last 40 years!

Liberals are in power and shift things way to the left. People are disgusted by this and when the next election comes they vote for the opposition. But the opposition isn't truly conservative, and doesn't bring everything fully back to the right. So when the next liberal is in power they are already starting at a place that is further left than the prior liberal started from. It's a downhill slide to the left over time. And we wonder why our country is in the shape it is in?

So what do you do when you are pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and reciee a ticket? Do you ignore that too?

Apparently anything can be banned as long as it's in the name of better health.

This is an overreaction.

I don't like civil liberties being taken away. I look at places back east trying to bad soda pop and it pisses me off.

That being said, I feel that this is an overreaction on your part. I have no problem banning the use of tobacco products on state property. Cigarette smoke SUCKS and I hate being subjected to it. If you want to kill yourself then fine, puff away but I shouldn't have to breathe in second hand smoke on my property or community property. Instead of just banning cigarettes it was probably easier to ban all tobacco products.

I was at the lake behind my house this past weekend and had my 10 week old daughter with me when a guy smoking a cigarette walks away from his family and up to where we were standing and just stood there puffing away. Unf&:)ingbelievable! I told him he needed to bounce that my 10 week old didn't need to inhale his smoke. It was rude and I wish they would do the same thing where I live

Cigarettes also cause fires and it's drier than a popcorn fart all across the country. One cigarette butt could cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in firefighting and property loss. You want to smoke then do it in your own home

Are you pissed off because:

1) The Governor banned tobacco use on Gov't property via Executive order and not thru the legislature.

or

2) The Governor banned tobacco use on Gov't property.

Hold a cigar herf on the state house steps...

I'd be ok with number 2.

Not so much with number 1, but like I said, I don't know OK law. That may be perfectly legal and a granted power of the office of Governor. If it's a legal power granted through OK law, then I say "oh well".

Don't like it? Change the law, or move.
If it's not a legal reach of power by State laws, then take it through the courts.

One reason there's such a backlash is that smokers make up over 25% of the population, and that doesn't count those who use smokeless. It's a big number and I'm willing to bet we're in the top 3 nationally in the number of smokers.

Seeing that it's State land and Gov't property, I imagine they can do whatever they want.

They can ban ATV's, ban hunting, ban fishing, ban camping, ban campfires on Gov't land on a whim if they wanted to. I don't see where this is any different.

Both!!!

I think you're misunderstanding my meaning. I'm saying that there is more reason to not vote for Romney over things he has done and said than there is to not vote for your own governor over the smoking thing, at least to my mind.

I'm voting for Romney too and even if I was a Tobacco User, I'd vote for your Republican Governor.

I don't mean to be nit-picky, but I don't think smokers come near being 25% of the population, either country-wide or state-wide in Oklahoma.

I agree 100%. The OP is not a conservative if he is now going to vote for a Democrat over an issue like this. He is just using this to vent against a Republican Governor. If you need tobacco use smokless tobacco while you are on State property.

Smokers are everywhere in my neck of the woods....

http://smokefree.gov/map.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150779/Smoking-Rates-Remain-Highest-Kentucky-Lowest-Utah.aspx#1

When something impacts you and you care will that be an overreaction?

I agree, it was rude for that man to to that. I don't do that. In fact I ALWAYS seperate myself from others when I smoke, nor do I smoke in my house. Are you going to legislate all rude behavior?

If I am 200 feet away from you and you get a slight whiff of my cig tough, get over it. That's not going to hurt you nor have any negative implications on your health or that of your baby daughter's.

I also use my ashtray and do not toss my butts out the window. That's called littering and is already against the law. Banning cigarrets to prevent this is no different than banning guns because people get killed by them. Of course you will look at that differently because you like guns and dislike smoking, but it's the same damn thing. If you are foolish enough to not care if other people's rights are squashed, or at the very minimun to not allow them reasonable accomadation, then you have no right complaining when your rights get squashed.

Just because they can doesn't make it right! As far as state land goes the last time I checked the Governor doesn't own it, the citizens of Oklahoma do!

I don't give a chit if smokers make up 5%. My rights are my rights and majority rule should not stomp on them.

"who the heck does she think she is????"


Maybe she's a conservative who is tired of paying for (or subsidizing) other peoples� medical bills. You know, for cancer surgeries, chemotherapy, COPD, Emphysema, etc - these kinds of diseases.

I agree with your statement here and that's why you need to check into OK law to find out if the citizens, by law, have appointed that power to the office of the Governor.

Check the law, enforce the law through the courts, or seek to change it if you don't like it. As a conservative, rule of law should be a priority!

I understand why you're pissed but the Gov't can do whatever they want on Gov't land.

I could go pitch a tent on the steps of the capital and tell them that "I'm a citizen of OK" and that "it's my right as part owner of the capital to set up shop where I want". Shortly there after I'd be making my "one" phone call in the hoosegow.

I'm not a smoker. I hate walking thru a veil of cigarette smoke when entering a building and I could go "Charles Bronson" on the owner of the last spit cup I tipped over. However, IMO they should have at least gone thru the legislature.

If you feel so strongly about it, call the ACLU and see if you've got a case to go fight it out.

First: You have no idea what I am.

Second: Being a Republican is not necessarily the same thing as being conservative. You might be a Republican, but if you don't hold your Republican leaders responsible for adhering to Conservative values then you are a Republican and not a Conservative. Given the choice I'll take Conservative principles over a Republican title any day.

Third: You need to read the original post. I said "all tobacco products." That includes smokeless tobacco.

When I happen to see an LEO in the area I merely hold the belt with one hand until he/she passes and then continue belt-free.. The fine here in TAX HELL WISCONSIN is $10.. IF I get caught I'll pay the fine and tell the officer right to their face that I will NOT comply with this law and then drive away w/o the seat belt on..

People need to stand up and defy these nanny-state laws en-masse. What are they gonna do? Lock up a few million citizens?? Screw 'em..

Freedom ain't free! Dictating behavior because of increased medical costs for others is a real slippery slope, and if that is your rationale for the justification for passing laws that remove or impede individual liberties then everything is fair game.

I'm working on that now.

The Poleece have never said a word about me not wearing a seat belt here in Okiehoma, although it did happen once in Texas back in 1991, still didnt receive a summons.

Gunner

I mentioned reasonable accomadion. I too don't think you should have to walk through a veil of smoke to enter a building, but if I'm a ways from the entrance it shouldn't be too tricky for you to avoid me.

Wow! We have state properties where one can stand at night and never see a porch or headlight anwhere on the horizon. Who's going to come out and enforce that? I wonder why they didn't throw in drugs, weed, and sex with ones school teacher. Now one will be charged with "in contempt of governor."

I too would take advantage of the first opportunity to vote them out, as I'm tiring of government by dictator.

But Lee, seatbelts are for your own good. Can't you see that? You really need to listen to your government and wear yours because it will keep you safe. That is whay the governemnt is here to do....to keep you safe and protect you from yourself by telling you what to do. Lord knows you can't make this sort of monumental decision without their help (Do you feel 12 years old again?). Not to mention we can't have you negatively affecting the medical costs of others, that's just not fair.

That's awesome, but I know some districts here where you woundn't skate like that.

I'm tellin' ya OkBowman, the Poleece just like me for some dang reason, Hell, I've even given them bullets, snuff, and cold Gatorade out BS'ing on the side of the road.

Even hooked an Okie Hi-Po with a Bud of mine that had some hi-cap AR-10 mags back around 1999 when they were kinda scarce.

Gunner

[quote=RedneckPeople need to stand up and defy these nanny-state laws en-masse. What are they gonna do? Lock up a few million citizens?? Screw 'em..

[/quote]

It amazes me how many here on this own site don't get it. It amazes me how they don't understand that by sitting idly by and watching other peoples' liberties being taken away only endangers their own. These are supposed to be gun guys....2nd Amendment suporters....and they don't get this? Our country is [bleep]!!!!!!!!!

Ever since I got my concealed carry I have been written any tickets when pulled over. Actually I was once but that's a whole nother story...lol.

I hear ya neighbor, I've yet to run into a bad one yet, they all seem like nice Dudes just out doing their jobs, now that capitol BS is a different story, I dont hang around big marble and polished granite buildings.

Gunner

Here you go Bowman,.. [b][color:#3333FF]the answer to your problem....[/color][/b]





You can get your fix and not put out any smoke. There's no tobacco so you can "smoke" anywhere in the state...

This will probably end up saving you money in the long run too..

Do it for your health and for the good of your fellow statesmen....

Actually no. In Sottera, Inc. vs. Food and Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891, 898-899 (D.C. Cir. 2010) it was ruled that electronic cigarettes are tobacco products and would be regulated as such. Based on this ruling Oklahoma is doing the same.

And so, based on your second post above, you somehow think that voting for another Democrat is going to improve things how?

Yeah, you'll send a message alright. The message will be "I like the way the country has moved to the left, and I want even MORE of that".

No joke, I've got one of those in my hands right now. That's the very brand I went with and I freaking love them! All of the benefits and none of the ill effects. They are FAR cheaper than a pack of smokes. They average around $1.90 a pack.



Not true. The court held that e-cigarettes and other products [b]made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as �tobacco products� under the Act and are not drugs/devices unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes.

The V2 Cigs are not made or derived from tobacco. It's propyl glycol which is the same air sanitizer used in hospitals. In other words, when you exhale you are cleaning the air.

The only place that I know of that I cannot use my e-cig is on an airline as it's an FAA policy forbidding the use of them on flights.

Like I said, I'm in my office at work and enjoying mine, right now.

Or I could vote for a Republican who will continue to chip away at small individual freedoms. Eventually all this chipping away at small stuff adds up to something pretty dang big when taken altogether.

I think it is beyond argument that we have become more liberal over the last 40 years. It is also true that many elected Republicans have helped this occur due to instance like this. We continue voting for the lesser of the two evils, and we are slowly but surely sliding down that lefthill slope. Furthermore, I think most here, including you, would agree this is a bad thing and we need to try to move back to the right. So let me ask you, what should we do?

Okay. I didn't realize there was a difference between E cigarettes and V2 cigarettes. So thehow would this actually be applied.

I know for a fact that all Oklahoma state agencies, including law enforcement, have been informed that E cigarettes are to considered the same as traditional tobacco cigarettes, and as such will be banned as well.

So, here I am on the lake fishing and having a V2 cigarette. The local lake ranger drives by and see me indulging in this delight, so he stops and informs me that I can't do this. I then inform him that it's not a regular E cigarette, but instead a V2 cigarette. I doubt that will change anything because that would require him to interpret everything, including the law. In my experience state employees are loath to interpret anything and make a decision because that's simply not how bureaucracy works.

Well it good to see that someone realizes that the left is winning their war with the Moderate keep them moving to the left to believe the're electable. You don't stop progressives by compromising with them on every issue.

Your second hand smoke in PUBLIC places does impact me. People that dont smoke shouldnt have to be subjected to your filthy habit. While I appreciate the fact that you try to remove youself from others not everybody extends the same courtesy. A lot of people that smoke are trashy individuals and dont give a rats ass about others. Instead of being pissed at the governer you should be pissed at all the cigarette smoking white trash fuggers that are inconsiderate pricks as they are the ones that ruined it for you

As for being 200 feet away and getting a "slight whif", this would be a problem. If you had been in that spot smoking and it was me that moved into the area that smelled like an ash tray I would move. That being said, if you lit up after we had been set up and I could smell it your cigarette would be extinguished regardless of what you thought about how you felt it would impact our health.

The slippery slope is now GREASED my friends.

I find it unbelievable that many so called Conservative on here who usually preach smaller and less intrusive government are now wanting more regulation and control, with the increased subsequent government involvement and inevitable expansion.

So, you don't like the slow slide down that slope, but would rather take a headlong plunge straight to the bottom by actually voting Democrat?

Once you vote a Democrast in, "to teach somebody a lesson", THEN how hard do you think it will be to "try to move back to the right"?

Do you want to start from where you are now, somewhere in the field, or all the way from the left sideline?

To answer your question... what we should NOT do is vote Democrat out of spite. A very short-sighted "solution" to a much bigger problem, that will only accelerate and solidify the problem.

Do you normally toss business to an outfit/store/corporation that you are boycotting? So why do that here?

Exactly.

Direct your rage towards those that are truly at the root of it all.

Present him with the law statute. It specifically says "made or derived from tobacco". These are not.

Hell, tell him that it's just your nicotine delivery device and is not made from nor derived from tobacco in any way.

Not a challenge, but can you help me find the specific Oklahoma statute referring to the regulation of e-cigs?

okbowman,

I'm not questioning what you are saying in regards to Oklahoma and e-cigs, but I'm having trouble finding anything online discussing it. I have found many sites that are proactive in protecting the rights of e-cig users, and they are all saying that there is nothing on the books in Oklahoma regulating the use of e-cigs.

That doesn't mean it's not so, it's just not reported at these sites. If you have some time, could you help me find where OK State is regulating them? There are organizations that are eager to fight that, and I'd like to inform them of your predicament.

Yes, I am conscientious about where I smoke. That's just simple human kindness and good manners that I was raised to have.

Your screaming kid in public impacts me, as does the noise your car makes, the exhaust it emits, the music you listen too, the cologne you wear, the hairspray your wife uses, yada yada yada...the list goes on and on. Should I have to accept some of this? Yes, of course I should. But there comes a level when I shouldn't. "Normal" car emissions yes, shot ring engine burning oil no. This is reasonable. Just like it's reasonable to ask me to go a couple of hundren feet away to smoke.

As far as your internet tough guy bit (least you're confused I'm referring to "if you lit up after we had been set up and I could smell it your cigarette would be extinguished regardless of what you thought about how you felt it would impact our health"), it appears as if smokers don't have the market cornered on trashy behavior.

Yes, I understand all of that. Honestly that part of the problem is fairly simple. What about the long term problem? Do you have any suggestions on how to correct that?

Give me a bit. I have a source for this information but I have to see if I can release it. I think you know what I mean.

No problem, I do, and if needed you can PM me.

I'm not being tough", I am just telling it like it is. If somebody lit up in the vicinity of my family and would not either move or extinguish their cigarette after being politely asked to do so I would extinguish it for them. This is a simple fact, I assure you Iam not trying to be a "tough guy".

Fair enough. What exactly do you define as in the vicinity if your family?

If I can smell it then its in the vicinity

Does that include two cars ahead the stoplight?

Its one of those things that I feel is really cut and dried. I absolutely agree that you have the right to smoke if you want to but I also feel that it is my right, as a non smoker, to not have to smell cigarette smoke in public places. Your cigarette smoke has a direct impact on my health and the health of my family. Not only that, it smells horrible

Outlawing sodas is ridiculous, some fat chic drinking a big gulp does not damage my health. A smoker does. Its comparing apples to oranges

Ok. I get it. No being reasonable here and no application of common sense. Just all or nothing. So if I am 200 feet away and you can't smell it I'm fine, but if the wind shifts for 1/4 of a second and you get the faintest tiniest whiff for a 1/4 of a second then I'm in your viciity?

You, and many others here, need to learn that we live in a world that is occupied by other people. And people being what people are there will always be some out there that do things we do not like and annoy us. If you use this to try and legislate peoples' behavior so that they will not do anything that bothers you then you are giving other people the go ahead to do this to you as well. And when you involve the government to assist you in this goal you are strengthening the government, which only weakens the individual and provides for the further loss of freedoms and personal liberties, both of those people who do things that annoy you and of your own.

What about the exhaust your vehicle emits? Should I have to be exposed to that in public places?

Before you start throwing stones at your personal per peeve you really ought to look at your own house. I'll bet you however much you want that you somehow, someway indulge in adversely affecting the health of others.

I completely understand your thought process, but look at it from another side of the coin that we all care about:

"I also feet hat it is my right, as a non-shooter, to not have to listen to all that gunfire from a public place. The lead from those bullets has a direct impact on my health and that of my family".

Public is public and it's a slippery slope once "unpopular" personal choices start getting the ban.

George

Yep, everything is fair game if the citizens are tired of picking up the tab for irresponsible behavior.

If someone smokes and does not have insurance to pay the medical bills, they seem to turn to the government for relief.

If someone does not wear a seat belt and is badly injured in an accident, it will probably be the other drivers insurance who pays � my rates go up.

If someone does not wear a motorcycle helmet, is insured and has no insurance, we all pay for the long term care (I know a man whose son was in a coma for 2 years (before he died) following a motorcycle accident (no helmet) and it was the state (i.e., taxpayers) and the hospital that paid the costs.

If someone is obese, gets diabetes, needs an amputation and, has no insurance, guess who pays?

I don't mind someone being irresponsible, so long as they don't hurt others and don't expect government assistance. But, unfortunately, the same uninsured folks who refuse to let a doctor pull the plug on granny expect the government to pick up the tab.

Finally someone gets it. Thank you sir!

Says the guy polluting the air with cigarette smoke. This goes both ways.




Says the guy pumping carcinogens into the air in public places. Again, this goes both ways!



Annoying me is one thing, doing something that has the potential to damage my health is another. Nobody should have to be subjected to your nasty second hand smoke in a public place. God almighty, did you bitch this much when they banned smoking on airplanes?

Personally I believe that driving a vehicle that is powered by an internal combustion engine is irresponsible. Science has proven that emissions from these vehicles are harmful to our health (If you don't believe this try staying in a closed garage with one while it is running and get back to me). Therefore you are irresponsible for driving one. You are contributing to the poor health of myself and others, and as a result you are also responsible for costing me more money in the form of higher insurance premiums and taxes. These things clearly demonstrate you are being irresponsible.

You don't have to drive one of these evil vehicles, you chose to drive one. Perhaps it is necessary because you live to far away from where you work to walk or ride a bike, but you are still being irresponsible and damaging me and others (both monetarily and physically) because you chose to live that far away. You don't have to do this. You could chose to live within walking distance of where you work.

Says the guy who is pumping deadly fumes into the environment from his truck...says the guy who is chunking plastic diapers into incinerators and land fills instead of using cloth diapers...says the guy who is contaminating my ground water with carcinogens because he purchases his food from large scale farmers whose pesticides and fertilizers leach into the ground water instead of buying from local organic farmers...says the guy who at this very moment is typing on a computer that will damage the environment and hence my health and pocketbook when you dispose of it....

So, shall we nit pick your life and see how you contribute to the poor health of others and and cost others money due to the decisions you make? Do you want to compare that to the impact I make from my smoking? No man is an island pal.

No, I didn't bitch this much when smoking was banned on airplanes. In a small confined space such as an airplane there is no way others can get away from my smoke. That was the right thing to do because it was reasonable.

i agree that it is wrong of a government executive to legislate by executive order... but i am tired of seeing cigarette butts covering the ground in public places... they are not easily biodegradable and can last on open ground for 20 years or more, even in full sun and exposed to weather...

those who smoke seldom consider how their habit affects others... in general, smokers have brought the roof down upon themselves...

a designated smoking area would be perfectly acceptable if all smoke, ash and litter were confined to that area, and, if all smokers abided by it.
nearly every smoker i know, ignores workplace designated smoking areas, and gets ugly if someone calls them on it, as i do frequently...

Of course it goes both ways. That's why very few things are actually "cut and dried" as you put it earlier. I have said over and over that there should be some sort of reasonable restrictions placed on where one smokes. I shouldn't smoke on a plane, nor inside a building with others, or directly outside an entrance where others have to walk through my cloud of smoke. But at the same time it is no less reasonable to be allowed to smoke a few hundred feet away from where people normally travel, and if people move close enough to smell my smoke then that is their responsibility, not mine. Nor is it reasonable to cry foul and say your health is being harmed when you get a tiny whiff when the wind changes.

So we are to believe that your right to pollute the air wherever and whenever you want to is on the same par as gun ownership???

I, for one, sure don't get it and I have been a gun owner / shooter for more that sixty years and was a smoker for at least thirty years. It was easy for me to give up smoking but wouldn't be at all easy to have to give up my guns. There are lots of states that would swap governors with you in a heartbeat, us included. Just get over it.

You don't have to suck on a cancer stick to survive either, but you choose to. It's a habit that you acquired somewhere in your lifetime. You weren't born with a cigarette hanging out of your mouth.

You choose to participate in a habit that has been proven to cause cancer in other people.

I don't care what you do. If you want to sit in the middle of the road, covered with peanut butter and beating a drum, knock yourself out.

But when smokers try to play off that their nasty habit as not affecting others health and blame non-smokers for smoking regulations,....well, I don't have much sympathy for smokers.

I rarely drink, but most everyone I know will have a beer and then drive. They don't appear drunk, but studies have shown that even one beet impairs one's driving ability. Based on your logic we should reinstitute prohibition.

How about a blue collar order at the polls to depose her executive rights?

do what i did 12 years ago

move to wyoming

i used to live in ardmore

Have you read everything I have posted on this thread? I have repeatedly stated I am all for reasonable restrictions on where one can smoke. I frequently hunt and camp on a 200,000 tract of land that the state leases. According to this ban I will not be able to legally have a cigarette around the campfire with my morning coffee or after my evening dinner. I believe that is an unreasonable.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes I have a great apprreciation for it. I understand that while it protects the hobby that I enjoy and love it is much more important than that. However, unlike many I believe that the greatest written freedom we have is listed in the 1st Amendment, and I do not believe it is a mistake that the Right to Bear Arms follows that one, for without this right none of the others would exist.

As far as getting over it because there are worse governors out there, nope, I refuse to allow the lowest common denominator to guide me. You can, but I won't. I aspire to more than that.

I'm not trying to be contentious fellow Okie, but seriously, do you believe that if you catch a whiff of cigarette smoke for a few seconds you have an increased chance of getting cancer? Yes, I know that by smoking I do, and my family would too if I smoked inside with them, which I don't.

I know that studies have proven second hand smoke increases the chance for non-smokers to get cancer. I don't doubt that. But the studies I have seen were constant exposure to second hand smoke, such as a spouse smoking in the house with his/her spouse, or a waitress that worked in a smoking section. I have not read a single study that shows that MINOR and MINIMAL contact with second hand smoke increases anyones chance of getting cancer.

There are a lot of products that can cause cancer if repeated prolongued exposure occurs, yet have no impact from minimal and infrequent exposure. Pesticides and many other chemicals are included in this. Why am I to think that cigarette smoke is any different?


You said, "but when smokers try to play off that their nasty habit as not affecting others health and blame non-smokers for smoking regulations." Out of curiousity can you please direct me to where I said this? The only person I remember blaming was the Governor.

for those who compare cigarette smoke to outomotive exhaust, remember they took the lead out of our fuel and put catalytic converters on our vehicles...

take the tar and nicotine from your pack of smokes and run all your exhaust from them through a filter, and i'm OK with that... The state has heavily regulated auto exhaust for the good of the general public...

True, but if auto exhaust is perfectly safe then you wouldn't mind starting your car and locking yourself in the car garage with your it running. I know that most of it is carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide (if in proper working order), but there are lots of studies that show how harmful even that is, and a car puts out a heck of a lot more exhaust than my cigaretts do.

Furthermore, Oklahoma stopped the annual vehicle inspection process some years ago. Since then there are a lot more cars that are not in proper working order, and as a result emmit more harmful fumes.

In addition, there are many many products that that are proven to be very harmful to people in addition to those people that are using them directly. Cigarettes are just the tip of the ice berg.

You know this, but for the other readers, the chances of bumping into someone on Honibia who gives a crap about your smoking is slightly lower than bumping into a white man at a Spike Lee movie festival held in Washington D.C.

Personally, I'd be more worried about bumping across somebody's pot farm or boobie-traps than I would be about smoking at Honibia.

I know this smoking ban thing is a "principle" item with you, but the fact of the matter is,..they can make whatever rules they want for state land.

It's STATE land, or land that is Leased by the STATE. They can set whatever regulations they want. Granted, it probably should have been passed by the legislature instead of the way it was done, but ultimately it's their decision to make.

If I lease land to someone and tell them the only thing I won't permit is to see a Pink Jeep driving on my place,..well then the lessee better not be driving a Pink Jeep across my property or they get the boot.

Same thing applies here. If we don't like the rules, then we can leave and go somewhere else. We don't have any recourse,..unless you want to come up with the cash and be the highest bidder next time and outbid the state for Honobia.

Sucky deal for smokers and pink jeep owners, but that's the way it is.

Yeah, I hear you about Honobia, Three Rivers too...lol. I know that the state can pretty much do whatever it wants. Nothing new there. I do have a huge issue with this being done through an Executive Order, and I have a huge issue with other people not recognizing what a slippery slope this is. No pink jeep for me...lol.

Now THAT is something I'll support you on, Smoker or not. I don't know if the Governor legally has that kind of broad sweeping power. I'm doubting it...

Also I think if played right this could give the libtards an issue to capitalize on. Fallin is a Republican and Conservative. One thing that has plagued the Republican party for a long time is that they are for the rich man and big business while the Democtatic Party is for the little guy. Personally I believe they are both for the rich guy, but the average Joe doesn't. Now, it seems a bit hypocritical that Fallin has opposed additional regulations and restrictions from OSHA and the EPA that would potentially benefit the health of people yet cost that business more, but then make this Executive Order. It seems to perpetuate the idea that Republicans are on the side of the rich man.

However, given that this is all wrapped up inside people's health, I doubt Dems will touch it.

I don't know either, but if she can do this then what is to say she can't make an Executive Order banning large off road tires becasuse she believes the manufacture and disposal of them is harmful in some way?

Seriously, this is pretty scary stuff!

okbowman,

not talking about you. per se, but the average smoker could care less about others and how smoking around other people interferes with their lives.

if 90% of smokers took your attitude, you'd not be facing this issue...
same deal if 70% of smokers, or even 50% were like you claim to be...

but in reality, well over 99% of smokers just don't care about others, and others can't be expected to care when the house falls in on smokers... truth.....

All us dang Okie dudes need to get together for a smoke, drink, slay, and consume party someday.

Gunner

Too damn hot now,..not coming out of the house till October...

Are you a smoker or a spitter?

LMAO, hell iffin I could talk the Wifey out of her cement pond for the weekend, we could drink, smoke cigars, shoot skeet, and grill about 50 lbs of country ribs in the shade, with a constant flow of ice cold beverage of course.

Gunner

Both for me.

Gunner

no, not at all... the law is clear, and if i drive while i am impaired there are horrific penalties, if caught... but that's not really what my post was about anyway...

i'm talking about what virtually every smoker leaves behind, in public places... there are beaches where you cannot find a place to sit without parking your ass on someone elses cigarette butts...i once took a rake with me to clear a camping spot on a beach... raked for an hour and gave up, as the beach sand was full of butts to a depth of at least 6", and if no one throws another butt on that beach for 50 years it'll still be covered with the nasty things...

and i know, you're gonna claim that you've never thrown a butt down in public... and i believe you... no... really, i do....

Fallin is a Republican and Conservative. One thing that has plagued the Republican party for a long time is that they are for the rich man and big business while the Democtatic Party is for the little guy."

I think you been smoking something other than plain ol' Camels or whatever.

To funny understand that statement you'll need to read this article...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/23/us-smokers-smarter-idUSTRE61M3UQ20100223

(Reuters Health) - Cigarette smokers have lower IQs than non-smokers, and the more a person smokes, the lower their IQ, a study in over 20,000 Israeli military recruits suggests.

Young men who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day or more had IQ scores 7.5 points lower than non-smokers, Dr. Mark Weiser of Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer and his colleagues found.

"Adolescents with poorer IQ scores might be targeted for programs designed to prevent smoking," they conclude in the journal Addiction.

While there is evidence for a link between smoking and lower IQ, many studies have relied on intelligence tests given in childhood, and have also included people with mental and behavioral problems, who are both more likely to smoke and more likely to have low IQs, Weiser and his team note in their report.

To better understand the smoking-IQ relationship, the researchers looked at 20,211 18-year-old men recruited into the Israeli military. The group did not include anyone with major mental health problems, because these individuals are disqualified from military service.

According to the investigators, 28 percent of the study participants smoked at least one cigarette a day, around 3 percent said they were ex-smokers, and 68 percent had never smoked.

The smokers had significantly lower intelligence test scores than non-smokers, and this remained true even after the researchers accounted for socioeconomic status as measured by how many years of formal education a recruit's father had completed.

The average IQ for non-smokers was about 101, while it was 94 for men who had started smoking before entering the military. IQ steadily dropped as the number of cigarettes smoked increased, from 98 for people who smoked one to five cigarettes daily to 90 for those who smoked more than a pack a day. IQ scores from 84 to 116 are considered to indicate average intelligence.

Recruits aren't allowed to smoke while intelligence tests are administered, the researchers note, so it's possible that withdrawal symptoms might affect smokers' scores. To address this issue, they also looked at IQ scores for men who were non-smokers when they were 18 but started smoking during their military service. These men also scored lower than never-smokers (97 points, on average), "indicating that nicotine withdrawal was probably not the cause of the difference," the researchers say.

The researchers also compared IQs for 70 pairs of brothers in the group in which one brother smoked and the other did not. Again, average IQs for the non-smoking sibling were higher than for the smokers.

The findings suggest that lower IQ individuals are more likely to choose to smoke, rather than that smoking makes people less intelligent, Weiser and his team conclude.

SOURCE: Addiction, February 2010.

Well, I find it kind of hypocritical of a Republican governor to do an executive ban....it's just like Nanny Bloomberg in Noo Yawk City banning smokes, and now banning sodas. She needs a schooling in conservatism, not Bloombergism.
I chew basically because I learned to in college -- it beat Doritos at finals, snoose and coffee works much better. Wasn't long after that I figured out how to swallow. The example was my economics perfesser.
I can see the bans, a lot of snoosers have no class and leave a big leafy loogie in the drinking fountain, which is beyond Neanderthal.
I remember this one dolt at Steamboat, come out west from Joisey to ski with his frat brothers, right? So, he's got the Skoal and is drooling on the floor of our nice town bus. I saw the glint in the streetlights and had a word with the driver as well as a couple of other passengers.
We made Frat Boy eat the whole can and then kicked him off the bus.
And I hate cigarette smoke with a passion. I don't patronize smoky bars or hang with smoky people, but by gosh, if someone wants to smoke and drink in a bar and gamble, I'm okay with that. I am bothered on a fundamental level by both the sin taxes levied (to fund OTHER stuff) and the pure "majoritarianism" of it all.

Huntsonora, thanks for posting that article as I understand a lot more now than before.

When I started smoking, cigarettes were .18 per pack. I see them advertised now for over $5.00 for the same number of smokes. People don't have to be real sharp in order to spend that much money on something they are just going to burn up while at the same time hurting their health. And I'm not bashing smokers as it is no business of mine as long as I don't have to reap the benefits of their pleasure.

Glad I quit when they got to .50 per pack.

Teach her a lesson. I think you and a dozen of your best tobacco chewing buddies need to find out what she drives and hang around the parking lot for an hour or so. Everytime someone can work up a healthy juicy spit....deliver it all over her car. That'll teach her !

Instead of cutting off your nose to spite your face why don't you do something to oppose it. I am sure that there are millions of OKs who agree with you. The tobacco companies can't be too happy about it either. Organize a rebellion against this order. The tobacco companies would fund it and you just need to collect the individuals who are against this policy. If you can't get the Gov to rescind this order, get the legislature to over turn it. If they refuse then find and support a new conservative Gov to replace him.

First off I don't smoke. But, i strongly disagree with laws keeping others from doing it on public land for reasons others have stated. I don't think getting a whiff once in a while has any chance of ever harming you. It's probably not much worse than campfire smoke, and if you camp you get quite a bit of that. But, I don't think camping around other people is any fun either.

If there's a lot of smokers around you, you're probably far too close to the beaten path. Most smokers I've been around don't go any further than they can get with a six-pack and a lawn-chair.

I do think strict laws against leaving cigarette buts behind would be a good thing though. And while voicing my displeasure. I would never vote for a lefty because of it. That will never "send a message", as I don't think intentionally losing a war will ever help you win it.

GMAFB

Don't smoke or chew, never have, been blessed that way. Alchohol and caffeine are my drugs of choice.

Blown away tho by the intensity of the rhetoric here....

This has GOT to be a generational thing.

When I was in high school the song "Smokin' in the Boys' Room" was a documentary, not just a top ten hit You could hardly see across the room in there. EVERYBODY smoked, or most everyone. Nobody, even the non-msokers, cared much WHERE you smoked.

I'm older. Thats prob'ly why it would no more occur to me to b*tch about a wiff of second hand smoke than it would to object to shooting on public land.

What folks forget is that what is the LAW quickly becomes the common standard of morality and decency.

When I was a kid I carried a pocket knife to school every day, that would e regarded as outrageous today, as in WHY would I bring a DANGEROUS implement to school?

Ban smoking in some places, and now suddenly the common mantra of "the dangers of second hand smoke" becomes a basis for heated argument, such that someone is threatening to get in someone's face and forcibly remove what they are smoking. Why? Because that mantra has become the accepted norm.

Turns out that many of us live in a area where annual automotive inspections include tailpipe emissions. Its the law (tho IIRC the benefits have never been proven). BECAUSE its the law "dangerous car emissions" has become a common mantra too; one the smoker can call upon to say "Oh yeah? Well what about your dangerous car emissions?"


NHK9 has it exactly right when he says its an ever-tightening noose. Ban lead on pubic ranges and within a generation we will all be talking about how dangerous lead is and how you'd be nuts to leave it in a natural area. Ban shooting ranges on account of the noise and inconvenience to the public at large and soon everyone would think you were crazy to even THINK about shooting in a national forest.

Hunting? They are just biding their time, less and less of the population hunts each year. One day the common mantra will be "Hunting? Cruel and barbaic, especially when it involves a firearm on public land."


Birdwatcher

Holy flyin' cowturds, what chu been smokin okbowman?

Gunner

Well, I'm wondering what took the commies so long. What's it been, a decade since business owners were told they couldn't allow smoking in bars, or resteraunts?

Hope they do the same for booze, and beer.

Oh, and fried food, sugary drinks, "super size" fries, etc.

No pickin' and choosin' here, let's just get it right.

Yeah! vote for a democrat...that'll show her....have ya thought about that? Aint the dems, that are in there now, hurtin the country enough for ya? How bout some of the executive orders that HO has been throwin around? Do any of them piss ya off? HUH? maybe just a tad...

This is a true story.

Booze and beer do not offend me, but I do get sick from cigarette smoke. About 15 years ago, a man and woman at the restaurant table next to me kept smoking like chimneys. I asked the waiter if I could change the table, but the restaurant was full. I asked the couple if they could smoke a little less, explaining that it makes me sick. They just said "We'll smoke as much as we want.

Several minutes, I turned my head and vomited on their meal and it splashed on them. I don't understand it; I apologized and explained that I just could not make it to the rest room - but they were angry anyway.

Even the waiter and Maitre D were angry. Smoke makes me sick.

Man, djs, you are quite the delicate flower.

I worked my way through college and grad school tending bar. Near everybody in bars smoked in those days. When I started working and had to travel, people smoked in airplanes, trains and cars. I don't smoke, I don't like to be around people smoking, but sometimes you just man up.

99% is an awfully high number, and one that doesn't corroberate with my experiences. I know lots of smokers that are just like me. In fact most of the smokers I personally know are just like me. Although I know the possibility exists that they are just following my lead when I'm around.

Sounds like a good time.

I wish I had that luxury. We sold then bought a new house, and closed on it a little over a week ago. My to do list is never ending!

Smoker. My stomach can't handle the juice.

True enough but...I can't take smoke anymore. Back about '97 or '98 I had Pneumonia. I had it bad. Think like, 106 degree temperatures that might come down to 102 with fever reducer. Since then, I can't take stuff like smoke or even perfume. Gets me to coughing and the next thing you know I've got Bronchitis. I believe people have the right to smoke. Do I have the right to not have to get sick from their doing so? That's the point of my earlier post on this.

I don't know if djs was serious or just making a point, but I can feel for somebody who gets upset from smoke too. I can remember going to a locally famous restaurant one time when we were vacationing with my Dad's cousin and his wife when I was a kid. We were at a lake and after supper cuz decided to cruise around it looking at the scenery. I got to sit in front with him and he fired up a big stogie. I was sick as hell by the time we got through winding around the mountainous lake roads and inhaling all the smoke.

You mean you don't believe what those lying dimocraps say about trying to help the little guy and small business? Well, they are trying to help wetbacks stay and get on the state pay aren't they?

Big buck doesn't think the lying obammy is gonna put all the poor folks in jail if they don't pay $2500 a year for govt health care to make things fair for everyone.

Hmmm, I could swear it promised no increase in taxes for those making less than $250,000 a year?

I am an honest person, and yes I have tossed a butt before, especially when I was younger. At home I have places to put my butts, and while in public it has practically become a habit to put them in my pants pocket until I get back to my truck. But like I said, I don't deny ever tossing a butt.

Also, while the law is clear about drinking and driving it is equally clear about littering.

And I know you've never had a beer then drove, I really, really believe that...



2009 stats:

http://dontdiedrunk.org/drunk-driving-stats/?gclid=COmrqMW16bACFc1k7AodeHIX2w

Almost 32% of all traffic deaths were alcohol related.

Drunk drivers kill someone every 48 minutes.

11,000 were killed from alcohol related vehicle accidents.

181 children age 14 and younger died in these accidents.

1.4 million people arrested for driving under the influence.

147 million self reported episodes of drunk driving.

The average drunk driver will have drove drunk 87 times before being pulled over.



Now, lets contrast this with lung cancer (not all cases of lung cancer are connected to cigarett smoke)

2007 stats:

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/f/lungcancerdeaths.htm

In 2007 160,000 people died from lung cancer, of which second hand smoke is believed to be responsible for the deaths of 3400.



I just counted and realized I have been to 23 states, of which I have driven significantly on "country backroads" through 18 of them. I have yet to drive more than a few hundren yards without seeing a beer can.



You'll notice I am citing actual numbers, not generalities. Fools run with general statements, and politicians love that.

You, and others here, are making the case to ban smoking in public places (and in fact probably would have no problem with banning smoking altogether) due to the litter it causes, the financial burden it places on others, and the the fact that second hand smoke is dangerous.

Lots of things cause litter. Should we ban everything that causes litter?

Yes, I know that tobacco creates a financial burden on other, but so LOTS and LOTS of other activities that people engage in. Should we ban them all?

As far as the dangers of second hand smoke goes, we all know that second hand smoke is dangerous. However, I have searched and searched for information regarding this,a nd as of yet the only information I can find shows that it is the continuous long term exposure to second hand smoke in confined areas that cause this. There is ZERO information out there to support that you catching a whiff of my smoke for 1 second as you walk through the parking lot is any danger to you at all. There are tons of products that are harmful when long term exposute occurs. Pesticides and herbicides quickly come to mind. Every year at the end of winter/beginning of spring I smell pre-emergent everywhere I go. If I'm smelling it it means I am coming into contact with it (BTW...I hate this smell). It's a fact that herbicides are harmful and many are cancer causing, so why is this allowed to occur? Because they are only harmful when long term exposure at high levels occurs. From everything I can find the same is true of exposure to second hand smoke (If anyone has any additional information on this please forward it to me. I like to make decisions based on fact, and not make knee jerk reactions.). It appears that the treat of danger from second hand smoke is non-existant to those waling be smokers outside and things of that nature. So everyone who is geting all worked up over their exposure to second hand smoke and the dangers they are being submitted to can relax. You're in no danger. 3400 people died from second hand smoke in 2007, which is 7600 less than died from alcohol related accidents, and these were all people who had continuous long term exposure to second hand smoke.

I was referring to the image that many people have. My mistake for not being clear. The image that many parts of society and people in our country have is that Republicans support rich people and big business, and are not supportive of poor folks or even lower middle class folks.

To all, pardon me, Obama care is a mandate, not a tax.

so... we all violate this or that law, at one time or another...
i take my chances, why can't you take yours??? why all the crybaby bullshit???

This is the best post on this topic so far!!!

Yeah, after reading what I wrote I would have said the same thing...lol. oops....@*&%R$JK

Yeah, that was a seriously stupid thing to write. Note to self....read what I type before posting.

Executive orders burn my ass, no matter who they come from. I expect chit like this from Dems, but it really pisses me off to vote for a Conservative Republican who later pulls this crap.

I made a serious typo with that statement.

Hey, man, them ain't my words.

I was just passing on what okbowman said.

Because I shouldn't have to.

It always pisses people off if repubs pull the same goofy crap normally pulled by dems.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I believe Republicans should be above this.