People Ban: NV Page 1

Read Newest Articles at: NV Page 2

---

Wide-open Nevada restricts smoking
11/14/06
By SANDRA CHEREB, ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
RENO, Nev. — Is Nevada, the Wild West of vice, becoming a bunch of citified goody-goodies?
Nevada voters last week approved a ballot measure banning smoking at bars that serve food, and around the slot machines at supermarkets, gas stations and convenience stores.

---

Haze heavy as ban nears

Nov. 11, 2006
ANNETTE WELLS

That’s the earliest day the smoking ban Nevadans passed on Election Day can go into effect.

What will happen on or around that date is anybody’s guess.

Law enforcement officials, who will be called upon to issue citations, are not sure how they’ll respond to smoking complaints.

Local and state health officials, who also will play an enforcement role, are still studying Question 5 and the types of resources they might need to assign to answer violation complaints.

The district attorney’s office, which will bring any smoking cases to court, isn’t sure who will be in violation: the person caught smoking or the establishment they are in at the time.

Also, there are questions about what the penalty will be for violators.

“The way I’m reading it, (Question 5) may not be the same as the legal (experts),” said Dr. Donald Kwalick, administrator for Southern Nevada Health District. “All of us involved, those in southern and northern parts of the state, as well as the state’s health department, need to meet and discuss enforcement. We also need to come up with a meaningful way to get information out to the public.”

Question 5 amends existing state smoking laws by prohibiting smoking in all places of employment in Nevada with the exception of gaming areas of casinos and bars that don’t serve food, said Michael Hackett, a spokesman for Nevadans for Tobacco Free Kids, backers of Question 5.

It falls under Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which makes it a criminal misdemeanor, said Mary-Anne Miller, county counsel in the civil division of the district attorney’s office.

“Like speeding or littering, that type of thing. It’s not just an ordinance violation,” she said. “This is state law.”

Under that section, typical fines for such an infraction go up to $1,500; the fine amount is at a judge’s discretion.

“But, overall, we haven’t sat down and taken a look at this (Question 5) yet,” Miller said. “That will take place sometime within the next two weeks.”

Sgt. John Loretto, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Police Department, said police will have to wait and see how the measure is written into state law, then “ascertain how we will enforce it.”

Hackett said enforcement shouldn’t be any different from what’s written in the state’s current smoking law. Under that law, violators can be fined $100 for each incident.

In Kwalick’s opinion, both the person who violates the law and the business where the violation occurs should be cited.

“Again, this is my own view of the law. It may be different,” he said.

Martha Framsted, spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Health and Human Services, didn’t have a clear answer about the agency’s involvement. But she did say that state tobacco prevention programs probably would be involved in educating businesses about the law.

She also said those organizations probably will help with businesses acquiring “No Smoking” signs.

Once Question 5 is officially law, businesses or places of employment where smoking is prohibited will be required to post “No Smoking” signs at every entrance. Ash trays and other smoking paraphernalia are to be removed.

Question 5, which received a majority vote — 54 percent favored it, 46 percent opposed it — prohibits smoking in all indoor restaurants, bars and taverns that serve food; grocery stores and bakeries; retail establishments such as malls and department stores; and drug and convenience stores.

Additionally, people cannot smoke in museums, libraries, movie theaters and art galleries or other indoor places of public display.

Under current law and Question 5, smoking is not allowed in child care facilities, video arcades, school buildings and grounds, hospitals and medical offices. This includes those child care facilities and arcades located within casinos.

Government buildings are also smoke free.

Local governments have the authority to impose stricter laws than the state.

Under the new law, smoking is allowed in bars and taverns that don’t have food handling licenses and areas of casinos where minors are not allowed, such as gaming areas.

Smoking also is allowed in strip clubs, brothels, retail tobacco stores and private residences.

“Opponents likely will have a problem with the removal of smoking from any place that serves food, especially bars” said Dr. Don Havins, chief executive officer of the Clark County Medical Society who also is an attorney. “It appears that they will have to ask their bar patrons to cease smoking, or stop serving food.”

As with most NRS amendments, Havins said, the state’s Legislative Counsel Bureau will have to codify existing language of Question 5 into the Nevada Revised Statutes. Once that happens, then it will be known specifically “what is permitted and what is prohibited.”

“If there is any ambiguity or if someone challenges it, it would then be up to the courts to give an interpretation of the law,” he said. “That’s the process.”

Lee Haney, a spokeswoman for the Smoke Free Coalition, backers of the failed Question 4 smoking initiative, said the coalition, represented by the law offices of Jones Vargas, is reviewing all options.

“Everyone is just trying to take a step back and look at it and determine what it means to them,” Haney said. “There is one thing for sure that we will be looking at — there’s this question out there about the gray areas of Question 5. Where will smoking be banned? There’s going to be a need for clarity.”

As an example of “gray areas,” Haney questioned whether open-air restaurants such as food courts and restaurants that straddle casino floors would fall under the law.

Hackett said smoking is prohibited in all indoor restaurants, whether they be inside a casino or straddling casino floors such as food courts.

He said restaurants and bars that serve food can allow smoking in outdoor patio seating.

Bars and taverns can serve food indoors and allow smoking, but they must create and completely close off their smoking section.

Restaurants cannot do this.

Haney also mentioned the hotel and motel room issue.

In late September, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected a ruling by Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox that included those rooms in Question 5. Maddox’s interpretation of the law was that hotel and motel rooms are considered places of employment.

In a recent interview, Denise Tanata Ashby, executive director of the Nevada Institute for Children’s Research and Policy at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who wrote a policy brief on both anti-smoking measures, acknowledged that the lodging room issue probably would be brought up again if Question 5 passed.

“There’s a lot of unanswered questions that aren’t so black and white, and we don’t even know who to call for interpretation,” Haney said.

Artie White, owner of the High Maintenance Sports Bar in Las Vegas, showed his displeasure with the new law by putting up a sign that reads: We’re Smokin Screw You Nevada.

“I’m not happy with it, but I have to abide by it,” he said. “It’s a crime if I don’t.”

For the time being, White said, he’ll keep his kitchen open. If he sees a revenue drop 30 to 45 days after the law is implemented, then he’ll consider other options.

“My customers are saying they will go outside and smoke, but they can’t walk outside with a machine or a drink,” he said. “Smoking, eating and drinking, they all go with gambling. That’s why these laws work in Colorado and other states. They don’t have the gambling component.”

Nevada has joined 14 other states with similar clean indoor air acts that seek to protect children and workers from secondhand smoke.

In terms of how Nevada’s measure stands up against those other laws, Beverly May, director of regional advocacy for the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, said all of them are comprehensive in their own way.

“Yours (Nevada’s) certainly isn’t on the restrictive end; it is more on the lenient end. But, with that being said, it’s an enormous success for people exposed to secondhand smoke,” she said. “I think all these clean indoor air initiatives, every one is wonderful, but for this to happen in Nevada, it tells us how far we’ve come to look at this as a public health issue and a health issue for workers. Nothing tells that like Nevada.”

As examples of more strict state smoking bans, May spoke of Utah and Colorado.

Utah bans smoking in all bars and restaurants, and starting in 2009, all private clubs. Colorado’s law, which originally didn’t include casinos, might in the near future. Backers plan to bring the issue up in the next legislative session.

In Arkansas, it is illegal to smoke in a vehicle when a child is present. And some states, individual counties, cities or towns have established their own smoking laws, even banning it in public parks.

May said some state smoking laws also include tobacco taxes to help agencies with education and enforcement. Nevada’s doesn’t include a tobacco tax. “Sometimes you have to move incrementally to get some of these laws passed because there are certain things that are deal-breakers,” she said.

---

Nov 9, 2006

Nevada voters passed a widespread ban on smoking in most public places. But the legal wrangling over Question 5 is just getting started.

Under the new law, smoking is allowed on gaming floors in big casinos, but some casino owners are still worried about what it will mean for business. That’s why backers of the anti-smoking initiative will push to have casinos wall off their restaurants to completely separate them from the gaming areas.

The Question 5 backers think the law can be interpreted in that way. But on the other hand, casinos may not see things that way. Behind closed doors, some casino execs are worried about having to make big changes because of Question 5.

In fact, Question 5 could face a tough legal fight. One reliable source in the casino industry told News 3 a lawsuit could be coming soon.

The law is scheduled to go into effect in mid-December.

---

Adrienne Augustus, Reporter
Smoking Supporters Could Take Legal Action

Nov 9, 2006

Supporters of the new no smoking laws could have one more fight on their hands — this time a legal one.
The General Election results revealed people want more restrictions on smoking in public places. But there is a chance the new restrictions could be placed on hold.

A representative with the Smoke Free Coalition, which is the group that pushed Question 4, says they are considering their options — which means they could be headed to federal court. Question 4, which failed, would have allowed smoking in public places.

Las Vegas attorney Ozzie Fumo says supporters of Question 4 have the right to take one more step in their fight.

“Because the law, the way it was written and the way it becomes law might be unconstitutional,” Fumo said.

Fumo, who is not representing either side of the issue, says if a federal judge interprets the wording of Question 5 to be a violation of the constitution, the new law could be out.

“They could even do that before the election is certified.” Fumo says the supporters of the failed Question 4 could ask a judge for an injunction.

Members of the Smoke Free Coalition have not yet announced what they will do. If they decide to file an injunction in federal court, it would take a judge just days to make a decision.

At the very least, it could tie up the new smoking regulations, postponing the date when the law goes into effect.

“I would suspect that if we’re going to see a lawsuit that it will be filed within the next week or two.”

Eyewitness News contacted a representative from the Smoke Free Coalition. That person said the coalition did not want to detail exactly what their next steps, if any, might be.

---

Nevada smoking ban a sign of the times for changing state

11/10/06
By SANDRA CHEREB, ASSOCIATED PRESS

RENO, Nev. (AP) – Nevada’s passage of a ballot measure that will chase smokers out of slot machine sections at supermarkets, gas stations and convenience stores, and from bars that serve food is part of an evolution from a frontier state in which anything goes into an urbanized society, analysts say.

Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno., also offered a simple explanation for this week’s surprising victory for strict regulations on smoking.

“People just don’t like it anymore,” he said

“When you’re this frontier state of 200,000 people, that live-and-let-live-attitude – no problem,” Herzik said.

But Nevada is no longer the Wild West.

“It’s a far more urban and thus regulated environment, and smoking is part of that,” Herzik said.

In a state where the flow of booze is perpetual, gambling fuels the economic engine and undertones of sex are flaunted, the outcome of Tuesday’s election caught many by surprise. Organizers didn’t target smokers in casinos, but they did impose government regulations in a state that prides itself on independence.

“Nevada has had a libertarian reputation, and has tried to uphold it, but that has been slipping away for quite a while,” said Michael Green, a history professor at the Community College of Southern Nevada.

“While we encourage people to come here and do things that are bad for them, we also have a growing baby boomer population,” Green said. “And that population is probably a bit more health conscious and might not want to be exposed to secondhand smoke.”

The state, now with a population of about 2.5 million, has the nation’s highest rate of smoking-related deaths and one of the lowest rates of smoke-free work places, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But Nevada also has a unique, almost-anything-goes economic relationship with tourists, and smoking has been regarded as what you do with your other hand while gambling.

Geno Hill, who owns five Rum Runner bars offering food and slots in Las Vegas and who is the president of the Nevada Tavern Owners Association, said he thought the independent leanings of Nevada’s rural counties would snuff Question 5.

“We were pretty comfortable the rural counties wouldn’t let California come in here any more than they are,” Hill said. “By golly, they did.”

Hill’s organization backed Question 4, a competing, less restrictive anti-smoking measure, which voters rejected, 52 percent to 48 percent.

Instead voters in Nevada’s most populated counties – Clark, Washoe, Douglas, and Carson City – as well as rural Churchill and Lincoln counties, approved Question 5. The remaining 11 rural counties turned it down.

Herzik was among many who projected Nevada voters would favor the less-restrictive measure, but he said he realizes his oversight.

“First and foremost, this was just straight anti-smoking,” Herzik said. “The majority of people do not smoke, the majority of people do not like smoking.”

Green said voters may have been confused between the competing measures, and he offered another theory.

“Nevadans are contrary cusses,” he said.

“There were a lot of advertisements saying vote yes on 4, vote no on 5,” he said, speculating many people voted just the opposite – just because.

Question 4, an industry-backed initiative, would have imposed minimal restrictions on smoking in areas of bars and restaurants that allow children. Instead, voters approved the Clean Indoor Air Act backed by public health groups, 54 percent to 46 percent. It bans smoking in any bars that serve meals, as well as in slot machine sections of grocery and convenience stores, and at video arcades, shopping malls, school grounds and day-care centers.

With the law taking effect Dec. 8, many small bar and restaurant owners are struggling to figure out what it means for them.

“They’ve told us either people can smoke and gamble and drink, or people can eat and gamble and drink,” Hill said. “There’s not much choice there.”

Profit margins on serving food are slim, he said.

“Drinking and gambling areas are where your profits come from,” he said, suggesting many bars may give up serving food.

He fears that if his patrons can’t smoke while they drink and gamble, they will go to the exempt larger casinos.

Michael Hackett, spokesman for Question 5 proponents, said complying with the law won’t be as ominous as some think.

“As we’ve looked at these laws in other states, how they’ve been carried out … it’s not that difficult,” Hackett said.

Lee Haney, spokeswoman for the group that pushed Question 4, said clarifications are needed about who will enforce the law and whether the ban includes hotel and motel rooms.

Hackett said the law was never intended to include hotel rooms, which by legal tradition have been treated as private residences.

One judge determined otherwise, though the interpretation was vacated by the Nevada Supreme Court, which said the district court lacked authority to make that finding. Another court challenge is possible.

Harry York, chief executive of the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, said his organization is trying to clarify the law’s provisions for its members.

“We’re trying to get a one-pager that makes sense,” he said.

The transition, he said, will be hard for small bars that serve food, and he hopes for a “reasonable” enforcement approach as businesses adjust.

While some customers may gravitate to the big casinos to be able to smoke and wager at the same time, York said neighborhood bars attract their own clientele.

“It’s a different atmosphere,” he said of the small clubs. “I personally think people will adjust because it’s not like they can go next door.

“The competition’s all under the same rules.”
Read

---

Voters approve smoking ban
Voters say no to pot, eminent domain, raise minimum wage
November 8, 2006
SANDRA CHEREB, Associated Press
Questions 4 and 5 both sought to restrict smoking in public places, but to varying degrees. With about half the votes tallied, Question 4 was narrowly failing, while Question 5, which imposes tougher limits on secondhand smoke, was passing.

---

Nevada casino smoking ban next?

10.29.2006
Liz Bentson

LAS VEGAS — Neither of two competing measures on next month’s ballot to restrict smoking in Nevada dares to prohibit smoking in casinos.

The gaming-floor exemption to both smoking-ban proposals reflects Nevada’s libertarian attitude toward compulsive behavior and the understanding that smoking, drinking and gambling go hand in hand.

Preventing gamblers from smoking, the assumption goes, would be bad for business, and therefore bad for the state.

Some gaming insiders are quietly worried that in the next decade, a wave of public opinion may be calling for a total ban on casino smoking.

But evidence suggests that Nevada could acclimate to nonsmoking casinos and that the gaming industry could actually benefit by it over the long haul — while cutting casino employees’ health risks.

Question 5 on the ballot would ban smoking in most venues save for casino gaming floors. The initiative exempts bars that don’t serve meals, although most Nevada bars — partly to comply with a law allowing slot machines in bars only if gaming is “incidental” to business — also prepare food.

Question 4, backed by gaming interests as a response to Question 5, would ban smoking in retail stores, galleries, libraries, museums and similar places that already tend to be nonsmoking, while allowing bars as well as grocery stores and convenience stores with slots to continue to accommodate smokers in those gambling alcoves.

If both petitions get more than half of the vote, the petition with more votes would win.

The gaming industry’s opposition to smoking bans is based on anecdotal information about customer preferences and a longstanding belief that smokers, who tend to gamble more than nonsmokers, have a right to smoke.

“It would make our job easier if no one smoked, but the fact is that they do,” said Judy Patterson, executive director of the American Gaming Association. “We have to balance two sets of needs.”

To accommodate nonsmokers, some casinos have improved their ventilation systems, leading to noticeably cleaner air. But not all casinos can afford to install the latest technology.

While there are long-standing assumptions that a smoking ban would hurt the casino industry, there is substantial evidence suggesting that smoking bans do not hurt businesses — and over time might help them.

The casino trade publication Global Gaming Business will soon report a study it commissioned concluding that casinos might pick up more business than they would lose if they banned smoking. In one poll, 31 percent of casino customers questioned indicated they would visit casinos more often if they were smoke-free, compared with 11 percent who said they would patronize another casino that allowed smoking, according to Global Gaming Business Editor Roger Gros.

“Most casino executives realize that the horse has left the barn and they’re going to have to consider (a smoking ban) now or later,” he said.

Dozens of studies indicate that the effects of smoking bans on bars and restaurants in other states, while perhaps not as rosy as some anti-smoking groups would submit, aren’t nearly as gloom-and-doom as predicted.

Government-funded, peer-reviewed studies by academics tend to conclude that smoking bans have had a neutral-to-positive effect on business. Studies funded by the tobacco industry or other business groups suggest the opposite, by downplaying the potential increase in business over time from nonsmoking customers.

Casino executives have not needed to weigh in on the issue so far, because of successful efforts over the years to fend off smoking restrictions.

“We don’t buy the premise that this is California or New York,” said Ron Drake, owner of the Point After Lounge in Las Vegas and a board member of the Nevada Tavern Owners Association, which is backing Question 4. “This is a unique economy based on gaming revenue. Smoking is very much a part of (gamblers’) lives.”

---

Voters approve smoking ban

November 8, 2006
SANDRA CHEREB

Nevada decided Tuesday they didn’t want legalized marijuana sold at state-sanctioned pot shops and approved constitutional amendments raising Nevada’s minimum wage and curbing government seizures of private property.

Question 7, to legalize adult possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana and require the state to set up procedures to tax and regulate its sale failed, 58 percent to 42 percent with more than half the expected votes counted.

Question 6, setting Nevada’s minimum wage at $1 above the federal standard, was given final approval after it was overwhelming embraced by voters in 2004. Question 2, setting new restrictions on eminent domain, must be approved again in 2008.

Nevadans also appeared to favor the more restrictive of competing measures to limit exposure to secondhand smoke.

Questions 4 and 5 both sought to restrict smoking in public places, but to varying degrees. With about half the votes tallied, Question 4 was narrowly failing, while Question 5, which imposes tougher limits on secondhand smoke, was passing.

Question 1, requiring lawmakers to fund education before other state budgets, also was favored in partial returns.

Three other proposed constitutional amendments were passed by the 2003 and 2005 legislatures and put to voters Tuesday for final approval.

Question 11, allowing lawmakers to be paid for each day they are in session instead of the current 60-day limit, was rejected. Question 10 authorizing lawmakers to call themselves into special session was failing, while Question 9, to reduce the size of the Board of Regents from 13 members to nine, was too close to call.

Question 8 to amend the state’s sales tax to exempt farm machinery while expanding exemptions for the trade-in value of used vehicles also was approved by an overwhelming margin.

---

Nevada Votes in Stricter Smoking Ban

November 08, 2006
Michael Moretti

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, to coin the Sin City adage. Unfortunately for cigar lovers, this sentiment does not work in reverse. Many never thought they would see the day when the smoking ban mania sweeping the nation would come to Nevada, a state steeped in shirking convention. Low and behold, voters yesterday opted for the stricter of two bans presented on the general election ballot.

Two competing initiatives were put to Nevadans, Question Four and Question Five. Question Four was backed by gaming and hospitality industries, and Question Five by health organizations. The unofficial tally has put Question Five on top by more than 30,000 votes.

If the expected results are made official, starting November 28, smoking in public indoor spaces will be limited to casino floors and stand-alone bars whose food service is limited to pre-packaged goods such as a bag of chips. Walking from the craps table in a Las Vegas casino through the hotel to a restaurant and on to a late show without ever having to put out a cigar will now be a thing of the past.

For more on this story, see the next issue of Cigar Insider, due out November 21.

---

Gap gets slimmer on two questions to restrict smoking
Frank X. Mullen (FMULLEN@RGJ.COM)
November 1, 2006
A new statewide poll shows that Question 4, the less restrictive indoor-smoking ballot question, is gaining ground on Question 5, a more restrictive measure that would outlaw smoking in bars, restaurants and most other indoor places with the exception of private residences and casino floors.

---

RE: Advocates pitch anti-smoking laws

Dear Editor
Oct. 2/06
Mr. Hackett states,’You can die from secondhand smoke.’
I challenge Mr. Hackett–can you prove to the public and to the media and show one death certificate that states,”This person has died, soley from secondhand smoke.”
If you can’t prove it, then it is not an issue.
In fact I can state emphatically, no one has ever died, soley from secondhand smoke.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

---

September 10, 2006
By Marshall Allen, Las Vegas Sun

At first blush, it appears like a mismatch: a middleweight versus a heavyweight – health and public interest groups backing a stringent anti-smoking initiative squared off against another less-stringent but similar initiative bankrolled by the casino industry and bar owners.

Courtesy a ruling Friday by Nevada Supreme Court justices, both initiatives will be on the ballot in November. If both pass, the one with the most votes would become state law.

This fight between health and economic interests tests Nevada’s long-cherished reputation as a place free of government meddling. And it may very well show how the state’s newcomers, many of whom come from places such as California that severely restrict smoking in public places, feel about limiting personal freedoms in exchange for public health.

“The smoking initiatives reflect a movement in Nevada away from the old idea that in Nevada a man can do what a man wants to do,” said Michael Green, professor of history at Community College of Southern Nevada. “The initiatives also reflect the Nevada version of the Golden Rule: that he who has the gold makes the rules.”

Both initiatives promote public health, but the Clean Indoor Air Act – backed by groups including the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and the Nevada State Medical Association – is far more restrictive.

It would ban smoking in almost every indoor public space except the floor of casinos. If it passes with more votes than its rival initiative, people could no longer puff away while playing video poker in grocery or convenience stores. Smoking would also be prohibited in indoor areas of restaurants, retail stores and movie theaters, among other places. A provision to include hotel and motel rooms was removed Friday by the same Supreme Court that allowed it to be placed on the ballot.

The competing initiative, Responsibly Protect Nevadans from Secondhand Smoke, was created in response to the Clean Indoor Air Act, which is viewed as harmful to tourism. It is primarily financed by gambling and resort interests: Golden Gaming, Herbst Gaming, the Nevada Resort Association and the Nevada Tavern Owners Association.

Anti-smoking measures are important, but they shouldn’t go too far, said Lee Haney, spokeswoman for the Secondhand Smoke initiative.

“We believe when you have almost a total ban on smoking, everywhere but the casino floor, you limit people’s choices,” she said. “People come to Las Vegas to do things they wouldn’t normally do in other places: gamble, drink, smoke.”

The Secondhand Smoke act would restrict smoking in restaurants to areas where children are not allowed. It would also ban smoking in schools, retail stores and movie theaters. Smoking would be allowed in grocery and convenience stores where gaming machines are located, but otherwise prohibited.

The two initiatives also place the power to restrict smoking in different hands. The Clean Indoor Air Act allows local municipalities to create tobacco-control measures. The Secondhand Smoke initiative gives the state Legislature control so politicians can consider economic interests as well as health concerns when considering smoking bans.

About 23 percent of Nevada adults smoke, and the anti-smoking initiatives are part of a national trend. As of January there were nine “smoke-free” states, and many local jurisdictions with strict anti-smoking laws.

Proposing the laws in Nevada is somewhat unusual because it represents fairly intrusive government regulation, said Eric Herzik, professor of political science at UNR. The initiative backed by the gaming and resort industries is not proposing anything new, Herzik said, but it’s a call for limiting regulation. Meanwhile, he said, the health advocates would like to see smoking banned altogether.

The competing proposals are a “major test of where Nevada’s at in terms of our past meeting our future” for embracing regulation, Herzik said.

There are cases where Nevada voters freely imposed regulations. For instance, the state defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman with a 2004 amendment.

And State Archivist Guy Rocha said if Nevada was truly libertarian it would have legalized marijuana long ago. He also pointed out that Nevada introduced prohibition in 1918, a year before it became federal law.

The state’s rapid growth also dilutes the passion for live-and-let-live ideals, Rocha said. Voters will decide what’s best when it comes to the anti-smoking measures, but the voters are an ever-changing entity, he said. The smoking laws won’t be decided by longtime residents, but the newcomers, he said.

“I see this as a bellwether vote,” Rocha said.

Marshall Allen can be reached at 259-2330 or at marshall.allen@lasvegassun.com.

---

But Question 5’s ban won’t include motel, hotel rooms

Sep. 09, 2006
By SEAN WHALEY and ANNETTE WELLS, REVIEW-JOURNAL

CARSON CITY — The Nevada Supreme Court on Friday elected to let voters decide in November whether they want to enact tough anti-smoking restrictions in bars, supermarkets and restaurants.

In a 6-1 decision made public Friday, the court upheld the smoking restrictions of ballot Question 5, called the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act.

In upholding the ballot initiative, however, the court rejected a provision added by Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox to include all motel and hotel rooms in the smoking ban, a restriction supporters of the proposal said they had not sought to include in the measure.

The court found that the challenge to the ballot initiative was premature. “Attacks based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the measure, if it were passed, are not appropriate for pre-election review,” the court stated.

But Chief Justice Bob Rose said in separate comments that he was concerned by what he called misleading information about the effect of the measure on “stand-alone bars.” Anyone who signed the petition would have to work to find out that a “stand-alone bar” is defined as an establishment not licensed to serve food, Rose said.

Despite backers’ claims that bars would be exempt from the smoking ban, under the definition in the petition most stand-alone bars would be covered by the smoking prohibition, Rose said.

Rose, who largely agreed with the court majority, raised the only dissent to the decision. “The initiative espouses the noble purpose of protecting children from secondhand smoke,” Rose said. “Unfortunately, this purpose is made far less regal by the misleading representations made in the initiative.”

Question 5 now will face off against a competing measure, Question 4, dubbed the Responsibly Protect Nevadans from Second-Hand Smoke Act. Question 4 would maintain the status quo on smoking restrictions in Nevada.

The measure that receives the most votes becomes law as long as it secures a majority. Either of the measures, which seek to amend state law, would take effect if approved by voters in November.

Backers of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act said they were pleased but not surprised by the court’s decision.

“We certainly didn’t expect to be thrown off the ballot. Their appeal was baseless and without merit,” said Michael Hackett, a spokesman for the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act campaign.

Hackett also applauded the court’s decision to exclude all motel and hotel rooms from the proposed smoking ban.

“That’s fine with us,” he said. “It is consistent with what our intentions were and are.”

Lee Haney, a spokeswoman for the Smoke Free Coalition, backers of Question 4, the less restrictive anti-smoking initiative, said the group was “obviously disappointed” with the decision.

But she did say the coalition was “encouraged” by Rose’s comments about the misleading nature of the initiative. “He had some pretty strong language about that,” she said.

Haney also said that despite the justices’ ruling, the Smoke Free Coalition and other Question 4 backers maintain that if Question 5 passes, “it will ban smoking in hotel and motel rooms. You have to dig through the law to see that.”

Haney said the issue could arise if Question 5 passes.

“The end result is that we believe our initiative is the more reasonable of the two initiatives,” she said. “We have to take into consideration that we are a tourist-based economy.”

Question 4 would maintain the status quo by banning smoking on school grounds and in day care centers and video arcades. It would allow smoking in slot machine areas of grocery and convenience stores and in designated areas of bars and restaurants.

Both proposals qualified for the ballot during petition drives in 2004. But the Legislature last year refused to act on either petition, and under state law, they automatically were placed on the 2006 ballot. Both petitions had proposed bans on smoking on school grounds and at video arcades and day-care centers. The 2005 Legislature banned smoking in video arcades and day-care centers.

Question 5 is backed by the Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition, which is made up of the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society and the Nevada State Medical Association.
Read

---

Gambling group wants anti-smoking petition off Nevada ballot

July 26, 2006

CARSON CITY, Nev. — A gambling industry lawyer says backers of a petition to outlaw smoking in most public places misled voters by falsely claiming the ban wouldn’t extend to all Nevada hotel and motel rooms.

Nevada Resort Association lawyer Todd Bice has filed briefs asking the Supreme Court to remove the anti-smoking petition from the November ballot because signers were told that the smoking ban wouldn’t include hotel and motel rooms when the opposite is true.

Bice quoted Michael Hackett, campaign manager for Nevadans for Tobacco-Free Kids, who said in June that it wasn’t his organization’s intent to include hotel and motel rooms in the smoking ban — but it wouldn’t appeal a judge’s ruling that says that’s what the proposal does.

Nevadans for Tobacco-Free Kids publicly had announced its petition would ban smoking in restaurants, convenience stores, supermarkets and most bars and taverns.

Hackett on Monday said his organization didn’t mislead anyone. He pointed out it was Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox, who in a June 5 decision said the way the petition was worded meant the smoking ban applied to hotel and motel rooms.

Chief Justice Bob Rose has granted Bice’s request to allow the Nevada Resort Association to participate in the case. He also set an Aug. 23 high court hearing on whether the smoking petition should be removed from the ballot.

Rose also said the court wants to hear appeals on all ballot question disputes by Aug. 23 and decide the cases before Sept. 28. That’s the day when voting registrars must send absentee ballots for the Nov. 7 election to residents living overseas.

The chief justice added that the deadlines make it incumbent on people appealing ballot questions to have lower court judges quickly hear and rule in their cases.

Danny Thompson, secretary-treasurer of the state AFL-CIO, said his Nevadans for Nevada organization will appeal Secretary of State Dean Heller’s decision to place the Tax and Spending Control in Nevada initiative on the ballot.

Also, a group of government leaders including Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury sued to block a ballot question restricting the ability of governments to acquire land through eminent domain proceedings. That will be heard Aug. 14 in Clark County District Court.

---

EDITORIAL: No smoking

Jun. 07, 2006

District Judge Bill Maddox threw the health Nazis a curveball on Monday when he OK’d their strict anti-smoking initiative for the November ballot, but interpreted the petition’s wording to also ban lighting up in hotel and motel rooms.

A Review-Journal poll taken in April showed 63 percent of voters support the measure, which would outlaw smoking in restaurants, supermarkets, convenience stores and even most bars (in a tap-out to the gaming industry, casinos are exempt). But those surveyed weren’t told that the proposal would also apply to resort hotel rooms. While proponents of the measure insist that Judge Maddox’s more expansive reading of the initiative won’t “sway voters,” it almost certainly will energize opponents of the ballot question.

That’s good.

Smoking is bad for your health. Don’t smoke. But it should be up to private business owners — not the mob or government bureaucrats — to determine whether catering to smokers makes sense.

And even more insidious than this measure’s flagrant attack on individual and property rights, is its deception.

The Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition, a group of health and medical organizations that sponsored the initiative, the harsher of two anti-smoking questions slated for the upcoming ballot, will frame their proposal as an effort to save kids from the dangers of tobacco smoke. Indeed, the coalition’s Buffy Martin stated Monday that, “Most people are looking for places to take their children where smoking is not allowed.”

Why, then, include bars and taverns in the ban when minors aren’t allowed past the front door?

In fact, many of the organizations behind this proposal would wholeheartedly embrace an outright ban on the use of tobacco products. And creeping incrementalism is their preferred tactic. In California, where smoking is already illegal in bars, the city of Calabasas has made it a crime to take a puff anywhere outdoors, even on your own front porch. Some “public health” officials have seriously proposed that parents be prohibited from smoking in their own homes or vehicles if children are present.

Nevadans who desire a smoke-free environment should patronize those businesses that offer such and lobby others to make the switch.

Meanwhile, the fact that so many people seem willing to embrace heavy-handed government interventions at the expense of personal choice and individual responsibility should trouble every freedom-loving Nevadan. The state would be better off without either of the proposed smoking bans.

---

Two smoking ban bills duel

July 7, 2006

CARSON CITY – Proponents of the more restrictive of two smoking-ban initiatives on the November ballot hope that a new surgeon general’s report on the health hazards of secondhand smoke will help their cause.

Michael Hackett, campaign manager for a coalition promoting the Clean Indoor Air Act, said the report reaffirms findings on secondhand smoke presented over the past 20 years – and the reasons why the coalition pushed for the measure.

The Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition proposal seeks to ban smoking in restaurants, grocery and convenience stores, and bars that serve food.

It’s supported by the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and the Nevada State Medical Association.

Earlier this month, Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox rejected efforts by the gambling industry to block the plan from the ballot – but also broadly interpreted the initiative to include hotel and motel rooms. Hackett said that wasn’t the coalition’s intent.

A competing measure would preserve the status quo by banning smoking on school grounds and in day care centers and video arcades. It allows smoking in slot machine areas of grocery and convenience stores and in designated areas of bars and restaurants.

Currently there are laws that ban smoking on school grounds, in public buildings and in hospital areas. In the last legislative session, smoking was banned in child day care centers that are licensed and certified, except for those with fewer than five children. Smoking also was banned in video arcades with 10 or more machines.

Hackett described the new findings in the surgeon general’s report as significant, particularly one dealing with children.

“I think the findings on secondhand smoke, that it poses a real danger to children, was clearly spelled out,” he said. “One statistic is that children are exposed to secondhand smoke at a rate that is more than double that of an adult.”

Backers of the other initiative, the Responsibly Protect Nevadans from Second-Hand Smoke Act, say they agree with the surgeon general’s premise of protecting people from secondhand smoke. However, they downplayed some of the report’s conclusions.

Lee Haney, a spokeswoman for the measure backed by the gambling, restaurant and tavern industries, said the surgeon general’s report didn’t take into account Nevada’s unique economic reliance on tourists, especially those who come to Las Vegas because they know they can smoke in restaurants, bars and hotel and motel rooms.

“Our belief is that there should be set aside areas for nonsmokers and smokers. People should have that choice to choose one way or the other,” Haney said. “We are so driven by tourists, and so the fact of the matter is, we don’t believe that Nevadans have an appetite to completely ban smoking.”

---

Nevada Voters to Decide Smoking Ban in Public Places

June 6, 2006
Edward Lawrence, Reporter

This November, Nevada voters will decide if they want to ban smoking in most public places in the state. A judge has ruled that the Nevada Clean Indoor Act will be on the general election ballot.

The Nevada Clean Indoor Act includes hotel rooms, but not the casinos themselves. It bans smoking anywhere children would be allowed.

If voters approve it in November, all of those rooms would be smoke free. Smokers could light up in bars and clubs, but restaurants — even in casinos — would be non-smoking.

The only smoke found in Sonio’s Cafe and Rotisserie comes from the grill. Since the opening eight years ago, Yiorgo Aretos never considered allowing smoking in his restaurant. He says it hasn’t affected his business at all. “It’s been non-existent. If fact I get people that prefer that we are a non-smoking establishment as well. That helps,” Yiorgo Aretos said.

For the most part, his customers don’t mind and his business has not suffered.

“There have been a couple of instances where I had customers who wanted to smoke and they have left because of it. The majority of the people are pretty cool with it,” Aretos commented further.

Aretos says a non-smoking environment compliments his fresh healthy food and restaurant motif.

Second-hand smoke remains the problem for supporters of the limited smoking ban. A number of health-related groups support the limited ban. So does the Nevada Resort Association.

Interestingly enough, neither side wanted hotel rooms included in the petition.

It was the judge who made that decision.

If the measure becomes law, it will affect restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, retail stores, video arcades, hotels and government buildings.

Email reporter Edward Lawrence at elawrence@klastv.com

Anti-Smoking Measure Pushed Again

Mar 28, 2006

A coalition of health organizations that’s been snubbed twice by the Nevada Legislature began a campaign today to pass a ballot measure that would ban smoking in most public places in the state.

The Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act headed for the November ballot would forbid smoking in public places where children are present, including restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, retail stores, video arcades and government buildings.

It’s backed by the group called Nevadans for Tobacco-Free Kids. It would not ban smoking in casinos, where children are prohibited, but would forbid lighting up in restaurants and shops inside casino resorts. The head of the American Gaming Association, Frank Fahrenkopf (FAR’-en-kof), says the casino industry opposes anti-smoking measures and instead favors improving air filtering technology.

As he puts it, “Our industry serves both smoking and nonsmoking customers and it’s our job to ensure that both these populations have an experience that meets or exceeds their expectations.”

May 16, 2005
ASSOCIATED PRESS

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) – Smoking would be prohibited in child care centers and video arcades in Nevada under a bill passed unanimously Monday by the state Senate.

AB118, sponsored chiefly by Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, D-Las Vegas, removes the authority of someone running a child care facility that serves five or more children to designate a smoking area. It also prohibits smoking in arcades that have 10 or more machines.

The bill now goes to Gov. Kenny Guinn for his signature.

Buffy Martin, a lobbyist for the American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition, has said a similar bill was introduced last session but failed on the Assembly floor – where AB118 passed this session without opposition.

Nevada voters also will weigh in on two ballot questions in 2006 related to smoking. Initiative Petition 1 and Initiative Petition 2, the latter far more lenient, would restrict smoking inside certain establishments.

IP1 would bar smoking inside grocery stores and convenience stores, many of which have slot machines and now allow smoking. It also would ban smoking inside restaurants but would allow it inside casinos and stand-alone bars, defined as those that don’t share an area with a restaurant and only serve prepackaged foods like peanuts and popcorn.

IP2 would allow smoking in restaurant bars and grocery store and convenience store gambling areas.

If both pass, the one with a higher number of “yes” votes will become law.