Letter: Right to good health trumps right to smoke

Thursday, Nov. 16, 2006 | 7:07 a.m.

This is in response to the letter from AJ Maimbourg published in the Nov. 13 Las Vegas Sun. The writer decries the passing of Question 5 and claims that it will take away his adult freedom, but I and a majority of voters in Nevada look at it in a different way. The passage of Question 5 is the first step toward clean air and better health. In case Maimbourg has missed it, secondhand smoke kills more than 40,000 people in America every year.

If people want to endanger their health by smoking, then they are certainly free to do so, provided they do not endanger my health or that of a majority of Nevadans who voted for clean air. If people want to smoke, let them do so outside, preferably in the desert, where they can freely indulge in this filthy habit.

I hope that the day when clean air becomes the law and a fact on the casino floor is not too far off, and then I will not have to fan off the deadly smoke from the smoker next to me. As for the economic impact of Question 5, Washington, Oregon or California - where stringent clean air acts have been instituted - do not show a lack of business in restaurants or bars.

What we nonsmokers need to do is demonstrate our economic power by setting aside one day per month on which we stay away from the casino floor and see how the casino owners like the drop in business. If the casino owners would be responsible people, rather than only interested in profits, they would not wait for the public to pass a clean air act for their properties, but rather do it as a public service to increase public health and well-being.

Erika Reitter, Henderson