Letter: No constitutional reason to stop smoking ban

Sunday, Dec. 24, 2006 | 7:20 a.m.

Regarding his Dec. 22 letter to the Las Vegas Sun, Randy Bolton needs to freshen up on his civics lessons and review the Constitution. He claims the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act violates the ex post facto clause of Article I. This is simply not the case.

First of all, the ex post facto ("after the fact") clause refers to laws allowing the prosecution for something that was legal at the time it occurred if that thing is later made illegal. (For example, if abortions were to be made illegal, you would not be able to prosecute for abortions performed or received during the time Roe v. Wade was in effect.) The smoking ban does not do this. Only violations occurring after the ban becomes effective would be subject to enforcement.

Secondly, his point about applying the smoking ban only "to new businesses whose owners have not already applied for the necessary licenses" is moot, since there is no business license for smoking.

If there were such a thing as a smoking license, then businesses whose current licenses are in effect would be exempt for the remainder of the licensed period, provided a related violation does not result in the license being revoked, of course, as can occur with liquor licenses being revoked for serving minors. Once those smoking licenses expire, the businesses would then be subject to the ban, as renewal would no longer be an option. However, since businesses are in reality only subject to having liquor and food service licenses, "bill of attainder or ex post facto laws" do not apply to the smoking ban.

William Bruchert, Las Vegas

archive