Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 | 6:44 p.m.
Reader poll
Sun Archives
- Ease on smoking ban among 100-plus new measures (3-23-2009)
Sun coverage
CARSON CITY – A lawsuit has been filed to stop the Nevada Legislature from moving forward with a bill that would permit smoking in more places and opponents say it would gut the clean air act approved by voters in 2006.
The suit filed in Nevada Supreme Court seeks a writ of prohibition to stop the Legislature from considering Senate Bill 372, set for a hearing Friday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Kendall Stagg said he led the effort to gather signatures for the initiative petition to ban indoor smoking in certain businesses and voters approved it 310,524 to 265,375.
He said the Legislature is now seeking to violate the Nevada Constitution by trying to amend the law. The constitution, according to the suit, says an initiative petition approved by the voters “shall not be amended, annulled, repealed, set aside or suspended by the Legislature within three years from the date it takes effect.”
The bill violates that mandate, says Stagg, a former candidate for the Reno City Council.
But the bill introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee would not become effective until December this year, or three years passed the approval by the voters.
The bill would permit smoking in places of employment if there is an enclosed area with a separate method of ventilation. It would permit smoking at conventions or trade shows that are not open to the public and are being organized by a tobacco association or a professional association of convenience stores and involves the display of tobacco products.
It would permit smoking in adult standalone bars, taverns or saloons with gambling licenses and that prohibit those under 21 years old from entering.
And it would repeal a section of the law that authorizes local governments to enact stiffer prohibitions against smoking. Local authorities would be prohibited from enforcing the clean air act.
The suit said the action in the Legislature makes the vote of the people meaningless.
“Ignoring the devastating impact passage of SB372 would have on public health in Nevada, other significant public policy and constitutional considerations support the need to enforce the three-year moratorium on the legislative action,” the petition said.
Opponents of the Nevada Clean Air Act have fought this in courts before and lost, and are now taking the battle to the Nevada Legislature, says Stagg, who could not be reached for comment.
Earlier this week, John Packham, director of health policy of research at the University of Nevada School of Medicine, wrote that this Senate bill would “essentially dismantle the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act.”
In a column in the Reno Gazette-Journal, Packham wrote that passage of the bill would “set back tobacco control and prevention by at least two decades.” For instance, he said it would permit smoking in places such as grocery stores and restaurants if there was a separate area.
Cy Ryan may be reached at (775) 687 5032 or cy@lasvegassun.com.
My home is in a 'separate area' of my neighborhood, are you going to tell me I can't smoke in my home?
If you're worried about second-hand smoke in grocery stores and restaurants, there's a VERY simple solution, DO NOT ENTER THE SEPARATE SMOKING AREA WITH IT'S OWN VENTILATION SYSTEM and you don't have to worry about it...
OR, just don't go to smoker friendly bars/restaurants, they're out there, and if you don't know where they are, then you aren't really that upset over it, you just love to complain...
I don't smoke-gave it up 30 years ago, and it was like hell had come down on my sorry butt for at least a year-tough addiction.... So I don't have a problem with people smoking in the bars and casinos because I know what they would have to go through to quit-until the other day. I usually simply move to another chair if a smoker sits down beside me. But the other day, 2 guys sat down beside me with cigars. God awful stink bombs. Now I realize that smokers are sad excuses for heroin addicts. They can't quit, so the non- smokers have to suffer for their addiction. Screw 'em-suffer like I did...
Once again someone has forgotten that we live in a Constitutional Republic where even one smoker has rights, where every private business can decide for themselves if they want to allow smokers.
Proponents of this lawsuit cite voters approved the ban in 2006 by a vote of 310,524 to 265,375. Did I miss something? When did this Constitutional Republic turn into a Democracy?
Everyone knows that a Democracy is the worst form of government where 51 people can take the rights away from the other 49. This is why the Founding Fathers formed a Republic where the Rights of the one are just as important as the Rights of the 99.
Just going by the voters is looks as if 310,524 people just took the rights away from 265,375. Land of the Free? Since when?
Leonard Foster
www.leonardfoster.com
OK, follow the logic, the tax on cigs just went up into the stratosphere.
We should legalize smoking EVERYWHERE then our money problems will go up in smoke.
Obama smokes for heaven sakes, get with the program.
The bar/restaurant I frequent for lunch has a huge sign stating "No one under 21 allowed", where does it say, "come on kids, welcome to second-hand smok-o-rama."
I don't smoke and never have but let 'em smoke. Besides I am sure my fave restaurant could use the business.
What I find so interesting state-to-state with these bans is how ANY judge upholds the taking of private property. These bars ARE private property, bought and paid for by PEOPLE who extend a priviledge to enter their establishments. NO ONE but those who have invested their life savings into these businesses should dictate to whom they cater. The anti-smoking health zealots lied about there being no harm to the hospitality industry from these bans. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation PAID for these bans with grants. The American Cancer Society, Am. Lung Assoc. and Am. Heart Assoc. all split a $99,000,000 grant from the RWJF paid through the AMA. The RWJF paid over half a BILLION DOLLARS in grants for tobacco "control". WHO profits from the sales of Nicorette, Nicoderm and Commit? Johnson & Johnson (the ONLY over-the-counter NRT company). Who CREATED the RWJF? The founder of Johnson & Johnson. Who OWNS tens of millions of shares of J&J stock? The RWJF. Seeing a pattern yet? How about the RWJF nation program Director who also helped write the federal guidelines for doctors on quitting smoking that included MANDATORY NRT products, even though there is only a 7% success rate? Or the recent article about the medical journal who threatened a whistleblower who exposed pharmaceutical ties to an author of yet another "health" study? Or that pharmaceutical companies have authored these "studies" and paid doctors to sign their names to them. And you think we should believe any of these anti-smoking groups? Not me! I think they should be investigated. And I think "non" profits should be forced legally to spend more of their vast wealth on the reason they were given tax exempt status. They should also investigate why property taxes aren't paid by some of these "non" profits when the same address and phone number is used by separate entities of the same organization (some of whom can lobby and push for legislation). Seems to me, the "non" profits and pharmaceutical companies are running this country...not WE THE PEOPLE.
WTF who filed the lawsuit, Kendall Stagg and is tax-n-banned tobacco crusaders?
wow no nieman comment on this one
might nieman be a non smoker?