Smoking initiatives cloud ballot

By Marshall Allen

Sunday, Sept. 10, 2006 | 7:36 a.m.

At first blush, it appears like a mismatch: a middleweight versus a heavyweight - health and public interest groups backing a stringent anti-smoking initiative squared off against another less-stringent but similar initiative bankrolled by the casino industry and bar owners.

Courtesy a ruling Friday by Nevada Supreme Court justices, both initiatives will be on the ballot in November. If both pass, the one with the most votes would become state law.

This fight between health and economic interests tests Nevada's long-cherished reputation as a place free of government meddling. And it may very well show how the state's newcomers, many of whom come from places such as California that severely restrict smoking in public places, feel about limiting personal freedoms in exchange for public health.

"The smoking initiatives reflect a movement in Nevada away from the old idea that in Nevada a man can do what a man wants to do," said Michael Green, professor of history at Community College of Southern Nevada. "The initiatives also reflect the Nevada version of the Golden Rule: that he who has the gold makes the rules."

Both initiatives promote public health, but the Clean Indoor Air Act - backed by groups including the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and the Nevada State Medical Association - is far more restrictive.

It would ban smoking in almost every indoor public space except the floor of casinos. If it passes with more votes than its rival initiative, people could no longer puff away while playing video poker in grocery or convenience stores. Smoking would also be prohibited in indoor areas of restaurants, retail stores and movie theaters, among other places. A provision to include hotel and motel rooms was removed Friday by the same Supreme Court that allowed it to be placed on the ballot.

The competing initiative, Responsibly Protect Nevadans from Secondhand Smoke, was created in response to the Clean Indoor Air Act, which is viewed as harmful to tourism. It is primarily financed by gambling and resort interests: Golden Gaming, Herbst Gaming, the Nevada Resort Association and the Nevada Tavern Owners Association.

Anti-smoking measures are important, but they shouldn't go too far, said Lee Haney, spokeswoman for the Secondhand Smoke initiative.

"We believe when you have almost a total ban on smoking, everywhere but the casino floor, you limit people's choices," she said. "People come to Las Vegas to do things they wouldn't normally do in other places: gamble, drink, smoke."

The Secondhand Smoke act would restrict smoking in restaurants to areas where children are not allowed. It would also ban smoking in schools, retail stores and movie theaters. Smoking would be allowed in grocery and convenience stores where gaming machines are located, but otherwise prohibited.

The two initiatives also place the power to restrict smoking in different hands. The Clean Indoor Air Act allows local municipalities to create tobacco-control measures. The Secondhand Smoke initiative gives the state Legislature control so politicians can consider economic interests as well as health concerns when considering smoking bans.

About 23 percent of Nevada adults smoke, and the anti-smoking initiatives are part of a national trend. As of January there were nine "smoke-free" states, and many local jurisdictions with strict anti-smoking laws.

Proposing the laws in Nevada is somewhat unusual because it represents fairly intrusive government regulation, said Eric Herzik, professor of political science at UNR. The initiative backed by the gaming and resort industries is not proposing anything new, Herzik said, but it's a call for limiting regulation. Meanwhile, he said, the health advocates would like to see smoking banned altogether.

The competing proposals are a "major test of where Nevada's at in terms of our past meeting our future" for embracing regulation, Herzik said.

There are cases where Nevada voters freely imposed regulations. For instance, the state defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman with a 2004 amendment.

And State Archivist Guy Rocha said if Nevada was truly libertarian it would have legalized marijuana long ago. He also pointed out that Nevada introduced prohibition in 1918, a year before it became federal law.

The state's rapid growth also dilutes the passion for live-and-let-live ideals, Rocha said. Voters will decide what's best when it comes to the anti-smoking measures, but the voters are an ever-changing entity, he said. The smoking laws won't be decided by longtime residents, but the newcomers, he said.

"I see this as a bellwether vote," Rocha said.