Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterPUBLIC HEALTH:
Haze hangs over state’s smoking ban
Bill, lawsuit complicate enforcement plan — just as the air began to clear
Leila Navidi / FILE
Robyn and Larry Gable smoke as they play video poker at Mulligan’s Border Bar & Grill, where a glass wall separates the nonsmoking restaurant from the bar. The Southern Nevada Health District has devised a plan to crack down on taverns that don’t comply with a partial state smoking ban, but a Senate bill would change the rules.
Thursday, April 2, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Reader poll
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
Senate Bill
Sun Archives
- Smoking ban not doing all the banning its sponsors hoped (6-21-2008)
- Fewer gamblers play after smoke clears (8-15-2007)
- Serve food or allow smoking: Trendy spots may face choice (8-15-2007)
- Smoking ban tests resourcefulness (7-30-2007)
- Smoking ban is ignored by many (1-5-2007)
Beyond the Sun
After months of collaboration with local justice courts, the Southern Nevada Health District has finally devised a plan to issue civil citations to violators of the smoking ban in taverns and restaurants.
But just as all that work, prompted by a court ruling two years ago that prohibited authorities from pursuing criminal violations, finally came together, a bill popped up in the Legislature that would take enforcement of the ban away from local authorities and put it in the hands of state health officials.
Senate Bill 372, which is to be heard Friday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, also would carve away part of the ban voters passed overwhelmingly in November 2006; the measure would allow smoking in taverns that qualify as “adult stand-alone” establishments.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, said the bill, which does not list a sponsor, is being pushed by tavern owners who have been fighting the smoking ban the past two years, complaining that it has decimated their businesses.
“It’s being perceived as a bill that undoes everything,” Care said. “But I have a policy of giving every bill a hearing.”
Maria Azzarelli, the tobacco control coordinator of the health district, said if the bill passes, it will be a giant step backward for health officials in their ongoing campaign to protect the public from the effects of smoking. Local authorities are best equipped to enforce the ban and now have the plan in place to do so, she said.
The battle grew even more complicated Wednesday, when a Reno supporter of the ban, formally known as the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, filed a suit asking the Nevada Supreme Court to prevent the Legislature from moving forward with SB372.
Kendall Stagg, a former candidate for Reno City Council, argued in his suit that SB372 would violate the Nevada Constitution. The constitution, the suit notes, 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 seeks to get around that prohibition by postponing the effective date of the change.
The Nevada Supreme Court had been poised to enter the legal fray over the ban anyway. The justices will hear arguments on its constitutionality Monday in Las Vegas. Many tavern owners want the law stricken entirely, and health officials want the high court to give them back the ability to file criminal charges against violators, an option a district judge removed from the ballot initiative two years ago. Criminal charges carry the potential of jail time in addition to fines.
Stephen Minagil, the health district’s former legal counsel who spearheaded the civil enforcement efforts, said developments at the Supreme Court and the Legislature have not stopped officials from moving forward with the civil citation plan.
“We’re just about ready to go with it,” he said. “We’ve been training selected staff members how to write citations and deal with situations involving the public that would require a citation.”
Authorities have created a one-page form that allows health inspectors making the rounds to issue citations for three separate offenses — one for patrons caught smoking in a bar and two for owners who do not post “no-smoking” signs or remove ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia.
The citation tells the smoker or the tavern owner to pay a $100 fine to the health district for each offense by a specific date.
If the fine is not paid, officials said, the health district can file the citation as a small-claims complaint with the appropriate local justice court.
At Las Vegas Justice Court, officials plan to set up periodic court dates for smoking violators to appear before small-claims referees to answer the complaints.
The referees, lawyers who are appointed on a part-time basis to handle small-claims matters, have the authority to issue judgments for the $100 against the smokers.
Minagil said the process of defining the civil enforcement procedure took longer than expected because of “administrative challenges” the health district faced when dealing with the courts.
Some courts initially questioned whether they had jurisdiction over the cases, and when that issue was resolved, the courts had to find a way to fit the process into their busy calendars, he explained.
But if the proponents of the ban think the civil citation plan will result in the smoke clearing regarding the ban, they are mistaken, said Bob Peccole, an attorney who represented Bilbo’s Bar and Grill on West Charleston Avenue in its fight against the health district over the law.
“They can put something through Justice Court, but that’s going to wind up at the Supreme Court, too, because there’s no authority for it,” Peccole said.
Discussion: 29 comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.
Post a comment
Spotlight
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas to close in May
- Pricey land buy on Strip a bit of a surprise
- Engineering marvel taking shape near Hoover Dam
- Harry Reid’s co-writer unloads while discussing polls, Obama quote
- Grim numbers show Nevada leads nation in suicides over 60
- Police: Legal runner returned to home, shot husband and wife
- UNLV back in the polls: No. 23 in AP, No. 25 in ESPN/USA Today
- MGM Mirage to leave N.J. in dispute over Macau partner
- GOP should blame itself for deficit, not Democrats
- The 10 best steakhouses in Las Vegas
Blogs
Shark Bytes
Willis reminds me of another great UNLV guard (1 Comment)
Elsewhere
With aggressive push, Internet gambling again in play
The Kats Report
A very quick list of which females could replace Steven Tyler in Aerosmith (8 Comments)
A 3.5-day sprint, highlighted superflously at Flamingo with Las Vegas newcomers
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Horsford: No taxes now, but tax reform later (14 Comments)
Gibbons: Cutting the budget can help me raise money (10 Comments)
Gibbons: Lawmakers made State of State worse with taxes (5 Comments)
Calendar »
- 9 Tue
- 10 Wed
- 11 Thu
- 12 Fri
- 13 Sat
-
Far East Movement at Blush
Blush Boutique Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Benji Madden at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Hugh Fink at the Riviera Comedy Club
The Riviera Comedy Club
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Here in Chicago, many small neighborhood bars ignore the ban. One has been on TV and it increased his business with all the free publicity. He is considered by many patriots as a local hero. Many of the bars are doing it to survive. There's something un-american about just laying down to die without fighting tyranny. The neighbors appreciate the lack of groups of people gathering on their otherwise quiet streets.
Smokers are outdated and disgusting. Like being obese but forcing it on everyone around you. There is nothing American about breaking the law. They should shut down establishments that do not comply with the law that voters approved.
Tyranny is these sick pigs blowing that smoke in everyone's face. Not sexy, not cool, just gross.
Here's a concept. If you don't like the place, DON'T GO! If I don't like a bar because of the patrons, the environment, the staff, or any other facet of the place, I stop going. So Nick if you don't like bars with smoke, don't go to them. This isn't a dictatorship telling you which bars to frequent. Hell, if being around smokers is so bad, it's cheaper and less of a hassle to buy a six pack and watch the game or a movie at home.
Why should healthy law obiding citizens stay home? Here's an idea, take your filthy drug habit home and smoke there! No one wants to be around the smell. Kill yourself if you want, but dont take decent people with you. White trash with no education are the ones with the smoking habit. Keep it in the trailer park, will ya?
I agree with redferret. If someone sits down beside me, and they start smoking, I simply move to another stool. I won't go to some of those cigarette stink holes like they have on Boulder Highway, with low ceilings and clouds of smoke. I must admit I was shocked at my favorite place in Lake Las Vegas the other day, when 2 guys sat down, and lit up cigars. That was a little too much, but it doesn't happen that often. The better casinos, like the new M, have such high ceilings and strong ventiation systems that smoking isn't a problem. I quit 30 years ago-it almost killed me-yet I don't believe in the second hand smoke theory. Funny, most of the bartenders and cocktail waitresses smoke, too. So what's the problem?
Actually Nick, first I live in a home. Second I've got two degrees. Third, I don't smoke. Wow, don't you look very pompous and highhanded. By the way, is it lonely up on that pedastle? As said, you don't have to stay home, go somewhere else that caters to your "discriminating" tastes.
Smokers are slobs and idiots. I say tax them into extinction.
Out.
I don't smoke and never have but I do enjoy a beverage now and then. I could careless if somebody smokes. At the rate the government is taxing cigs we should applaud them for bailing us out.
If a certain bar allows smoking (there are bars that ban smoking and bars that allow it) and you don't like the smoke, here is an idea, don't go there. Exercise your freedom as a human being and make a choice.
How long does it take for people to understand the risks involved with smoking and the harm it causes others with second hand smoke. No one has the right to cause another person harm accidentally or intentionally.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only one in five Americans smokes. The excise tax targets a minority group of Americans while over half of all smokers are low income with one in four classified as poor.
Cigarette taxes per pack by State:
State tax / Federal tax / Combined tax
Alabama $0.425 $1.0066 $1.43
Alaska $2.000 $1.0066 $3.01
Arizona $2.000 $1.0066 $3.01
Arkansas $1.150 $1.0066 $2.16
California $0.870 $1.0066 $1.88
Colorado $0.840 $1.0066 $1.85
Connecticut $2.000 $1.0066 $3.01
Delaware $1.150 $1.0066 $2.16
District of Columbia $2.000 $1.0066 $3.01
Florida $0.339 $1.0066 $1.35
Georgia $0.370 $1.0066 $1.38
Hawaii $2.000 $1.0066 $3.01
Idaho $0.570 $1.0066 $1.58
Illinois $0.980 $1.0066 $1.99
Indiana $0.995 $1.0066 $2.00
Iowa $1.360 $1.0066 $2.37
Kansas $0.790 $1.0066 $1.80
Kentucky $0.600 $1.0066 $1.61
Louisiana $0.360 $1.0066 $1.37
Maine $2.000 $1.0066 $3.01
Maryland $2.000 $1.0066 $3.01
Massachusetts $2.510 $1.0066 $3.52
Michigan $2.000 $1.0066 $3.01
Minnesota $1.504 $1.0066 $2.51
Mississippi $0.180 $1.0066 $1.19
Missouri $0.170 $1.0066 $1.18
Montana $1.700 $1.0066 $2.71
Nebraska $0.640 $1.0066 $1.65
Nevada $0.800 $1.0066 $1.81
New Hampshire $1.330 $1.0066 $2.34
New Jersey $2.575 $1.0066 $3.58
New Mexico $0.910 $1.0066 $1.92
New York $2.750 $1.0066 $3.76
North Carolina $0.350 $1.0066 $1.36
North Dakota $0.440 $1.0066 $1.45
Ohio $1.250 $1.0066 $2.26
Oklahoma $1.030 $1.0066 $2.04
Oregon $1.180 $1.0066 $2.19
Pennsylvania $1.350 $1.0066 $2.36
Rhode Island $2.460 $1.0066 $3.47
South Carolina $0.070 $1.0066 $1.08
South Dakota $1.530 $1.0066 $2.54
Tennessee $0.620 $1.0066 $1.63
Texas $1.410 $1.0066 $2.42
Utah $0.695 $1.0066 $1.70
Vermont $1.990 $1.0066 $3.00
Virginia $0.300 $1.0066 $1.31
Washington $2.025 $1.0066 $3.03
West Virginia $0.550 $1.0066 $1.56
Wisconsin $1.770 $1.0066 $2.78
Wyoming $0.600 $1.0066 $1.61
The smoking ban is kind of dumb. The studies on the effects of second hand smoke looked at people who suffered second hand smoke daily for a period of 30 years (how many of us actually do that?)
While they found that that persons chance for lung cancer doubled in their lifetime the chance was still less than 1%. That is very good odds.
The vast majority of us deal with second hand smoke so infrequently that are health is not likely jeopardized in any measureable way. So instead of forcing compliance let people be free. If you don't like smoke sit in the nonsmoking section, if you don't like any smoke, find a new place to dine. Same thing goes with TV and movie censors...change the channel or don't go see the movie.
Grow up America.
This one is tough.
I am sure that some casino workers have and will died from second hand smoke.
But if we ban smoking in casinos then tens of thousands of employees will be out of work.
OMG, the state would lose at least a billion in revenue.
All those precious spending programs would be hurt. Rogers will send out more memos.....the horror!!!!!
Dam the casino workers.....the government needs its cash.
It is not simply getting up and moving, or the profits "lost" by bars (most studies point out that the opposite is true). There is a much larger, and much more expensive, cost of smoking. One that hits all of us in the pocket books. Smoking causes cancer. Cancer that needs medical treatment. Treatment that costs money. Money that comes from insurance providers. Providers who pass on their costs to consumers. We all pay for the "right" of others to have cancer. And yes Mr Gibbons, second hand smoke causes cancer despite your sophomoric jabs.
Like homeowners, business owners should be afforded the liberty to decide what smoking choices best suit their establishments while not being subjected to government mandates, polls or voters unfairly mandating their choice upon others.
Defending the right for others to make their own choice is the essence of liberty.
I don't care if people want to suck on cancer sticks and kill themselves, just keep them in their own nasty, smoky, smelly closed off area. As far as the cig tax targetting poor people and minorities, here is a concept: Don't smoke, don't buy cigarettes, and you won't have to pay the ridiculous tax.
It reminds me of that 20/20 (or some show like that) show about how poor people in West Virginia have no teeth because they "can't afford toothpase and toothbrushes and mouthwash", but they tell this to the camera with a cigarette on one hand and a Mountain Dew on the other. They will let their own, and their kids', health and hygiene go to hell if it means buying a pack of smokes. Shoot, they'd probably sell their firstborns for a pack of smokes.
Fred, you didn't get what I said. I said the studies show that second hand smoke causes cancer - in fact it doubles your chances of getting lung cancer.
But I qualified that fact with more information - they were studying people who suffered second hand smoke daily for 30 years.
In the end, while their chance of lung cancer doubled it was still less than 1% chance.
Now, think clearly for a second. If you come to a bar for 3 hours once a week and sit in the smoking section, are you going to be as at risk as someone who does that every day for 30 years? Not likely.
There is nothing sophomoric about stating these facts. The sophomoric comments come from people wanting to ban all cigarette smoke because of their irrational fears about lung cancer. All I did was put the risk into proper perspective.
The Smoke Nazis strike again (I mean this literally -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacc...).
They ignore important threshold issues like 1) private property is mostly out of all government jurisdiction; 2) whether smoking is allowed or not is up to the property owners, not government; 3) secondhand smoke danger is largely a hoax.
For #3 I refer you to "The Second-Hand Smoke Charade" by Dominick T. Armentano, September 28, 1998. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...
The bottom line is found in this quote: "...people have a right to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke, no matter what studies show. But they don't have the right to force everyone else to live according to their preference." -- "Please Do Smoke, If You Like" https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub...
Some of us see this issue for what it REALLY is -- just one more reason for cops to give out tickets and cities/counties/states to collect more fines.
KillerB strikes again. This time though, you overlook an important thing. We don't live in a democracy and never have. We live in a democratic republic, established because a filter was necessary between the voting public and educated politicians. As time has progressed, we have also become increasingly socialist. With Obama's plans in place, that's more or less undeniable. Major issues arise when people forget the reality and try to ignore it. For example, when we tried to reestablish capitalist America with deregulation. That turned out well for us...
My point is this: people clamor for government intervention when they are unable/unwilling to help themselves and then get upset when the government wants to exercise the control they've been granted.
I'm not a fan of relinquishing my civil liberties, but how many do you actually think you have left? Really?
The thing that amazes me is that here we have a law that was enacted by a majority vote by the will of the people. Then a corrupt judge decides that he is above the will of the people and guts the law of it's criminal penalty. Then the bars figure they can enforce the law, but only if they feel they want to. I guarantee you if their liquor licenses were placed in jeopardy or even their right to have slot machines were revoked by frequent violations of the smoking ban. This charade would end REAL fast. Other states would not allow these BS games to go on for long. The state needs to enforce the will of the people and stop playing these games!
Westerly8, please be informed that presidents have been elected by a minority vote, so what's your point?
Liberty doesn't allow mass majorities or minorities making our personal choices for us.
peegee -- just checked my post. I didn't use the D word even once. So where do you get that from?
That our republic has been corrupted, I agree. Anymore it's the rule of "might makes right" or "we have the guns, what are you gonna do about it?" So government is no longer a benign parasite, it has turned predatory upon the people it was set up to serve.
And I agree with you, part of the corruption is the increasing tyranny of the majority over the minority. That's why we have Constitutions to describe the limits of government. As the Supreme Court said recently in the Heller case, anything guaranteed by Constitution "takes certain policy decisions off the table." As in the unconstitutional law can't be passed.
Of course even Congress passes laws without even looking at what they're allowed to do. 50 state legislatures are busily cranking new laws every year, and municipalities are doing it, too. The only growth industry left, it seems, it keeps getting bigger while we get smaller.
I relinquished no liberties, and no one else has the power to take them from me, except by force. That's the way it really works. Like what Harley said!
So Nick I gather that if you decide to own your own business you won't mind the government sticking its nose in to tell you what you can or can't do with regards to a LEGAL substance. Wow - you're a real champ. I, otoh, would resent the hell out of the government sticking its nose into my business - as long as tobacco is legal is should be up to (A) the business owner as to whether they want to allow it or not and (B) up to the customer to decide if they want to patronize or not. If the smoking bothers a customer they have the free will to get up and leave and never return. There's something very wrong when government that is supposed to be 'the land of the 'free' starts dictating to private businesses - and we should all be very wary of these practices - smokers and non-smokers alike.
Homer, with all due respect, the issue isn't about the smoke, secondhand or otherwise - it's about the GOVERNMENT dictating (yes, DICTATING) to PRIVATE BUSINESSES and telling them what they can and can not allow as it pertains to a LEGAL SUBSTANCE. I can't believe the number of people who let their disgust for cigarettes (and NO I'm NOT a smoker) cloud their thinking when it comes to being 'ok' with government stepping into the private lives of businesses that are privately owned. If the government wants to ban smoking in GOVERNMENT buildings then so be it - if big corporations (owned by stockholders) wants to vote smoking out - so be it - but we're talking about individual, privately owned businesses - and we're talking about a legal (like it or not) substance. So what happens the next time government gets a bug up their azz - what are they going to ban next - and what are private businesses going to be faced with? No one has to stay home, Nick, they can just go where everything is to their liking - and if you can't find such a place then open up a business of your own - and when you do keep your fingers crossed because maybe some day the government will decide something LEGAL going on in YOUR business bothers SOME people and they may mandate that you stop - and kill your business in the process. I absolutely HATE the smell of beer but I still go to baseball games - even knowing the DRUNKS that leave the baseball stadium may very likely kill me if there car crashes into mine - so how come government hasn't banned beer at baseball games yet? The beer coffers must be really kicking it in to the powers that be - I makes a whole hell of a lot more sense (but still wrong) to ban beer at baseball/football games because it just unleashes a bunch of drunk drivers at the end of the game - but even with all that I'd have to say nix on the ban simply because it's none of governments business and it's all about the stadium and the team ownership.
Westerly, why do you think the 'people' should have any VOTE as to how private business runs itself? That's where the real problem started to begin with - that something like a cigarette ban would be considered lawful to put to a vote as it pertains to PRIVATE BUSINESS. I hate to keep harping on that fact but WHY can't people get beyond their disgust of cigarettes long enough to see that this is just the tip of the iceberg - once government starts letting people 'vote' on issues that are none of their concern it will lead to the next 'vote' and the next. I do not, at present, own my own business but I shudder to think that in the future the government could deem themselves my almighty 'leader' and start telling me how to run my business - until they start kicking in some greenbacks to help cover the costs of running a business I refuse to allow them to be a (no so) silent partner. It reminds me of when the nuns in Catholic elementary school tried to tell us all that we were not allowed to go to the roller rink on the week-ends. For the first (and only) time my mother finally stood up for her kids and went to school and kindly informed them that until they (the nuns) gave us the .25 it cost to get into the roller rink they had NO SAY in the matter. I think the same attitude could (and should) be applied to government whenever they try sticking their nose where it surely does not belong. Remember what the REAL issue is - get beyond the cigarette hate - and realize it's about peoples freedoms. If someone wants a non-smoking restaurant, a non-alcoholic restaurant then they should OPEN ONE UP with their own money. I wonder what their reaction would be if government suddenly declared that since tobacco and alcohol are LEGAL they MUST allow people to partake....You KNOW what the out-cry would be - well face it folks, can't have your cake and eat it too.
azsk8fan -- Generally we're on the same page here.
Government is way over the line when it comes to private property. With this kind of thing it's counter-productive, as the article and some posts are showing.
the second-hand smoke debate is a fallacy. Okay, okay - yes put a human in an enclosed, unventilated room and filter the air 24/7 with cig smoke - keep that person enclosed for about 5 years - and maybe, just maybe they will get lung disease from second hand smoke. Take charge smokers - smoke in childless taverns - encourage the thought police to issue citations and then challenge them in court. Imagine, the courts would be totally clogged. The referendums or whatever offered to voters two years ago were confusing even to smokers who wanted to do the right thing in protecting children. The courts and legislature have every right to step in and make the law clear and "cleaner." I was wondering does the smoking ban extend to the Nye county bordello's? If these anti-smoking police advocates continue they will invade your homes prohibiting anyone with children to smoke in the privacy of their homes. I think Utah already prohibits smoking if children are in the car.
Smoking is an invasive habit that affects anyone near the smoker. In establishments, is it fair to expose workers to smoke?
Smoke in your homes, smoke in your cars, smoke pot, shoot heroin. I really dont car what you do, as long as it doesnt affect me in an enclosed, public space.
Would the non-smokers that drink like a ban on alchohol? I can prove the numbers for drunk driving deaths.
No more motor vehicles the fumes kill me. I am allergic to perfume, can we ban that. How about banning gambling with it's high suicide rate.
I don't go to places that I don't like, That's my choice and that's your choice. I can point too many things that could have neg. health effects on all of us. If we keep banning everything because of some peoples dislikes ,soon we will have nothing.
Most of the anti smokers are hypocrites. They drive their pollution causing vehicles everyday and spew more toxic garbage I have to breathe. And in this case of autos, I dont have a choice to breathe somewhere else. This garbage they put into the air, is more in one trip to work and back then a smoker can put out in a lifetime. Most people dont have a clue and could care less they just dont like the smell more the worry about health, becuase a good majority of these same folks that complain about smoking go home and smoke a joint, or push laws to legalize pot. I guess if you are stoned you dont care what you breathe.