LOOKING IN ON: CARSON CITY

Thursday, Dec. 14, 2006 | 7:20 a.m.

CARSON CITY - The experts who predict Nevada's economic future are divided over whether the new prohibitions on smoking in restaurants and other places - assuming they survive a court challenge - will mean less tax revenue for the state.

Three years ago, an increase in the tax on cigarettes temporarily lowered demand, but sales have since rebounded.

Buffy Martin Tarbox, government relations director of the American Cancer Society, thinks consumption will drop if the new smoking restrictions take effect, but does not envision a sizable drop in tax revenues.

After the 2003 Legislature increased the tax on a pack of cigarettes from 35 cents to 80 cents, monthly sales plummeted from more than 14 million to slightly more than 6 million. By last August, however, monthly sales had climbed back to 15 million packs.

Now, the Economic Forum, a group of five people who predict the state's tax collections over the next two years, is trying to assess how the smoking restrictions approved by statewide voters Nov. 7 might affect sales and taxes.

"I don't see how it cannot have a negative impact," said Michael Small, a member of the forum from Las Vegas.

But Bill Anderson, who offered future tax predictions on behalf of the state Budget Division, said he does not expect any major impact on tax revenues.

"Folks will find other places to smoke," Anderson said.

And Russell Guindon, a legislative fiscal analyst, carved out the middle ground, saying: "I don't know how much it will change behavior." While the restrictions might cause smokers to patronize restaurants less often, that potential loss of revenue might be offset by an increase in business from nonsmokers, he said.

A state mental health technician in Reno is out of a job because he spent too much time looking at pictures of sexy women on the Internet instead of attending to patients and other duties.

A state hearing officer found that Daniel Green logged into the Internet 16 times during a 40-day period from March to May "to view pictures of a sexual nature and fight videos" - a violation of the regulations of Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services.

Green's attorney argued that the firing was too harsh, noting that Green had no prior offenses.

But hearing officer Bill Kockenmeister said in his ruling that Green's excessive use of the Internet prevented him from properly doing his job and constituted "disgraceful personal conduct."

Green said the pictures he viewed were not pornographic but admitted it was wrong to access the Web site that featured the photos. The state mental health official who headed the program said the pictures were "not necessarily pornographic but were inappropriate because they depicted women in sexually suggestive poses."

Kockenmeister concluded that Green's frequent use of the Internet "indicates that, at the least, (he) wasted time while on the job."