Our View: A statewide ban on tobacco products violates Oklahomans’ rights and won’t end smoking.
OU’s plan to ban smoking on campus and create two designated smoking areas was superseded Monday by Gov. Mary Fallin’s executive order banning tobacco use on all state-owned and state-leased properties, including universities, public parks and state buildings.
We’re sympathetic to the governor’s reasoning for the ban — the serious health effects of smoking and the rising costs of health care for state employees — and don’t want to downplay the negative impact tobacco use has on Oklahomans’ health. But this order is a broad overreach of executive power.
For a self-named conservative Republican, who just this week announced a plan to cut the income tax to increase citizens’ autonomy from the state, Fallin seems to have little concern about handing down a mandate restricting a legal activity. The state is playing the mother here, making decisions for citizens based on what Fallin thinks is best for them.
Yes, the state has a vested interest in the health of its citizens, and yes it is seeing higher health care costs for smokers. But neither of those factors are sufficient justification for the state to transgress against citizens’ right to smoke.
And make no mistake: That’s what is really going on here. It’s not just about keeping tobacco out of state-owned places. How much would that really impact health and health care costs if smokers continue to smoke at home? No, it’s clear that the purpose of this ban is to coerce tobacco users to quit their habit by making it inconvenient to continue.
As if that will help anyone overcome an addiction. We hate to break it, Fallin, but that’s not how addiction works. Addicts must choose to give up a substance before they will be able to, and until then, no state-enforced ban will force them to quit. The failed war on drugs should be proof enough of that.
Attempting to coerce individuals to give up a legal recreational activity because state officials (or even the majority of Oklahomans) find it distasteful is a clear abuse of power and transgression against those citizens’ basic right to autonomy. Even when that activity is dangerous to the individual — even life threatening — it is not the place of the state to step in and protect a citizen from themselves.
That only applies, of course, up to the point where that citizen’s actions begin to infringe on another’s rights. Smoking should be banned inside restaurants, workplaces and other buildings, where people cannot avoid inhaling secondhand smoke. But it’s difficult to see how allowing smokers some out-of-the-way, outdoors location to smoke would expose others to the effects of tobacco. Just walk around it.
And smokeless forms of tobacco should be allowed anywhere, at the discretion of private business and employers, since they do not infringe on other’s right to a healthy lifestyle.
If the state is really concerned with improving Oklahomans’ health, a blanket ban like this is an ineffective solution. Instead of contenting themselves with such a symbolic gesture, state officials should look into alternative ways to educate their citizens and encourage them to quit.
How about funding more tobacco education and cessation programs? What about creating a tax break for companies that implement cessation programs, or for those that get a certain number of employees to quit smoking each year?
Or creating a program for federal employees to encourage them to quit and incentivize them with a bonus for doing so — and then releasing the program as a model for private companies to emulate.
As for the monetary effect, why not continue to increase insurance premiums for state employees who smoke to offset the rising health care costs?
Oklahomans need to come together as a community — officials and citizens — to encourage fellow citizens to make healthier choices. And after all the education, all the incentives and all the opportunities to quit, if they still choose to inflict harm on their body, they should be allowed to.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
LLBean 3 months, 1 week ago
So the OU Daily is now an advocate for anyone choosing to "inflict harm on their body" "should be allowed to." Utterly repulsive. I don't think a university or anybody else should support a policy where people can choose to harm themselves. Nor should people have to breathe toxic tobacco smoke. The idea that people can walk around a designated smoking area and even if they happen to bump into it by accident like in the now gone and very public Dale Hall parking lot designated smoking area--then too bad-- is repulsive too. And let's not forget that in the last infamous screed by this paper on the topic, they had decided that there should be five designated smoking areas in "convenient" areas on campus--read very public. You should get your stories/opinions and priorities straight.
mustafa 3 months, 1 week ago
great editorial
Bond 3 months, 1 week ago
I'm in agreement with LLBean. This is a ridiculous article; you make it sound like the state is forcing the community to adapt something it didn't want. Smokers are a minority, dear sir or madam who wrote this column. The majority of students on campus don't smoke, and having to walk behind or past people smoking 10-15 times a day just from walking to class is completely unreasonable. You might be able to argue smokers being allowed to "make their own life choices" but you can't argue that all the other people in the community who are negatively affected by it should just deal with it because smokers have their rights. That's such a poorly thought out argument, and it makes me sad that this is what goes into the OUDaily. In addition, what does this mean:
"As if that will help anyone overcome an addiction. We hate to break it, Fallin, but that’s not how addiction works. Addicts must choose to give up a substance before they will be able to, and until then, no state-enforced ban will force them to quit. The failed war on drugs should be proof enough of that."
I hate to break it to you, article writer, but that's not how this Executive Order works. Fallin just put a ban on 'the use of all tobacco products on "all properties owned, leased or contracted" by the State of Oklahoma.' (Oklahoma Daily). Smokers will still have all the private property in the state to smoke tobacco. They just can't do it on state property, like the University of Oklahoma.
Let's break apart this little gem from the piece: 'Yes, the state has a vested interest in the health of its citizens, and yes it is seeing higher health care costs for smokers. But neither of those factors are sufficient justification for the state to transgress against citizens’ right to smoke.'
You're right on one thing; this state DOES have a vested interest in the health of its citizens. ALL of its citizens. The state cares less about smokers smoking in private; smoking is heartily taxed and provides income to the state. What the state DOES care about is the health of all the citizens that don't smoke, and who would like to not have to breathe it in when walking to class.
Ironically, Boren was actually fighting for smokers when he allotted designated smoking areas instead of banning it totally, which, by the way, was then complained about by smokers as not being generous enough. A shame that even that is no longer an avenue.
TMGilroy 3 months, 1 week ago
LLBean, Bond, so you guys are in favor of universal healthcare, too, right?!
simp9830 3 months, 1 week ago
So, is Gov. Fallin going to start issuing tickets to all the folks smoking at tailgate parties during football season? GREAT EDITORIAL! I agree 100%! It is NOT the right of the government to protect oneself from stupidity. It is a proven fact that smoking KILLS you. If people choose to smoke, they take that into their ows hands. Oklahoma is so windy that any secondhand smoke from designated smking ares would dissipate into the atmosphere within seconds. Let's get real here; this is all about GOVERNMENT OVERSTEPPING THEIR BOUNDARIES. "People should not fear their governments, the governments should fear the people."
kdbp1213 3 months, 1 week ago
make your own choice in these united nany states of america. i choose non-smoking, water (instead of high sugar & carloric) pop drinking, the greasiest bacon cheeseburgers as possible, and to ride my Harley Davdson motorcycle w/o a helmet.
historyprofbrad 3 months ago
Sorry, LLBean and Bond, but your notion that just because a majority wants something means that a minority must bend to it is beyond faulty. Following your logic, slavery, Indian removal, and a host of other atrocious acts would have been permissible as long as a majority favored them. "Tyranny of the majority" is a very real issue and just because a majority finds something intolerable does not give them the right to shove it down the throats of others via governmental fiat. It is not the responsibility of the state to dictate personal behavior, including what one eats, drinks, or smokes (although if you are one who espouses national health care, you are giving the government that right by default). Even if one accepts the premise that smoking is a health risk to non-smokers, someone taking a puff outdoors and away from buildings or enclosed spaces poses no health risk to you. Bottom line, much of this argument has nothing to do with health. It has to do with people getting off on controlling the behavior of others (especially behaviors they themselves detest) and feeling a sense of superiority because of it. I would venture a guess that you also engage in behaviors that could be seen as unhealthy and irritating to others, and if the government tried to stop you, you would be screaming bloody murder. Yet, it's okay for the government to engage in such actions as long as it does not affect you. It is whiny, juvenile behavior at its finest. Get over yourselves, please.