Letter: Children’s health only part of Question 5

Friday, Dec. 8, 2006 | 7:11 a.m.

Some tavern owners are suing to stop Question 5 from taking effect. The vague enforcement rules are one of their grievances. They also say it is unfairly targeting "small businesses" with restricted gaming licenses, compared to businesses which have the same square footage and services (food, drink, gambling) but have unrestricted gaming licenses (16 gaming devices or more), and therefore are exempt under the "casino" provision, which the small taverns say violates their right to equal protection. (Simple solution: Ban smoking in casinos, then everyone will be treated equally.)

Those complaints are all fine and dandy, but what really gets my goat is when people use the argument that Question 5 was only to "protect the children" from secondhand smoke, and kids shouldn't be in bars. Yes, part of Question 5 was about restaurants, schools and day care centers that children are in, but that's not the only thing Question 5 was about.

When it comes to bars, these people don't seem to care one whit about nonsmoking patrons, and especially don't care about tavern employees who have to breathe secondhand smoke many times more than the patrons do, which results in higher health care costs for everyone involved.

Question 5 opponents need to get over themselves. If they want to make legitimate complaints, such as enforcement and the casino exemption, fine. But leave kids out of it. The part of Question 5 they are worried about has little or nothing to do with children, and everything to do with the health of employees and nonsmoking patrons.

William Bruchert, Las Vegas