Editorial: Clarify the smoking ban

Friday, Dec. 22, 2006 | 7:10 a.m.

Fifty-four percent of statewide voters - 310,524 - cast ballots last month in favor of Question 5, the stricter of two measures aimed at limiting the number of indoor public places where people can smoke.

The result represented a victory for people concerned about their own health and the health of their families as they buy groceries, dine in restaurants, shop in malls or go about their business in many other public buildings.

The scientific and medical communities have proved that secondhand smoke is harmful to the body's vital organs. The ballot question arose because nonsmokers wanted a law safeguarding their health when they went out in public, a law that would prohibit smokers from fouling the air in all but a few places.

Question 5 provided that law, which was to have taken effect Dec. 8. But on Dec. 7, the owners of more than 220 bars, taverns and other businesses in Clark County asked District Judge Douglas Herndon for a ruling about whether the smoking ban was constitutional, given that certain other businesses, notably casinos, were exempt from its restrictions.

Herndon issued a ruling on Thursday, but not on the law's constitutionality. He set Jan. 23 as the date for a hearing on that issue. With that question still unresolved, he decided Question 5 could take effect but with no criminal penalties attached for violating the state law. He left open the option for health inspectors to issue civil citations, meaning violators could get a $100 ticket that would not leave them with a criminal record.

When people signed the petition authorizing Question 5 to appear on the ballot, and later when they voted for it, they were led to believe - by the wording of the statute itself and a fiscal note explaining the question - that a violator would be guilty of a misdemeanor and that police officers as well as health inspectors would be involved in enforcing the law.

Because of this, and because a decision arising from the Jan. 23 hearing could go against the voters' intent, Gov.-elect Jim Gibbons and the 2007 Legislature should show leadership and get involved on Question 5. The Legislature should use all of its powers - including passing legislation to clarify Question 5's constitutionality and enforcement procedures - to make sure the will of the people is not denied.