carson city:

Bill that would loosen smoking restrictions dies

Friday, May 15, 2009 | 12:26 p.m.

Archive of Sun politics stories

CARSON CITY – A bill to allow taverns that permit smoking to also serve food has died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee without a vote.

This is the final day for committees to process bills and Committee Chairman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, asked his members if they wanted to bring up any bill for a vote. None suggested a vote on Senate Bill 372 to amend Nevada’s Clean Air Act.

“There was no appetite for it,” said Anderson. He said committee members felt uncomfortable with sections of the bill and the feeling wasn't partisan.

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas, said after the meeting that only one of many calls and e-mails was in support of the measure. It had passed the Senate by a 14-5 vote.

James Wadhams, a lobbyist for Golden Gaming with taverns in Nevada, said he thought there were the necessary eight votes to get it out of committee.

Wadhams, in testimony before the committee, said customers in a smoking bar can order out for a pizza or other food or bring food in to eat. But the bars are prohibited from serving food.

Tavern owners have testified they lost 25 percent of their business after voters in 2006 voted for the Clean Air Act to ban food service in taverns that permit smoking.

Steve Arcana, chief operation officer of Golden Gaming, which has 42 locations in Nevada, said there was a “severe decline” in business. And 60 employees were affected

But Nancy York of the school of nursing at UNLV told the Judiciary Committee the passage of the act did not have an impact on business. She said a preliminary analysis of a study showed the business in bars was declining before the ban went into effect.

The bar business, she said, paralleled the decline in the general economy. And health officials testified against the bill, warning of the dangers of second-hand smoke.

The bill also would have permitted smoking in a convention hall where the meeting is devoted to tobacco and the session is not open to the public. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority testified earlier it had lost two conventions because of the smoking prohibition.

Discussion: 10 comments so far…

By snowbird

5/16/09 at 9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Government power real health hazard

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.

Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved -- the cancer of unlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or is in fact just a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices -- places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
By Musician

5/16/09 at 9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Like school levies, keep at it until there is a return to compromise, not to mention sanity and a much needed economic boost for these private business owners.

This ban needs to be relaxed immediately to save the industry of entertainment.

If Vegas is having trouble, being the DESTINATION for adult entertainment that is it...simply think of all the other little Joe Schmoe towns and cities having to deal with the utter nonsense of a smoking ban and how it's killed our nightlife options, not to mention the incomes of those working in the industry.

The only thing smoking bans have in common with each other is that no matter where they are they do terrible things to people trying to make a living in adult businesses.

Also there are the lies from all the antismoking organizations saying there is no business loss with these FORCED smoking bans... when it is as plain as day that THERE IS and THERE ALWAYS IS.

If you want smokefree all the time, go with your kids to Chuck E. Cheese. They serve booze there, too.

Have family friendly fun there and let the adults do their thing.

Or a very easy solution is to go to one of the many, many establishments that decided to go non-smoking on their own, based on the preference of their clientele. They are all over the place.
Open your phone book and seek them out if this isn't obvious to you already.

Seems like such an easy common sense thing to do to most people who are not ones who feel the need to dictate their preferences on everyone using the government to strong arm their personal preferences on the private business owner.
By smartin

5/16/09 at 11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Menendo lied outright about how many calls and emails he got concerning the smoking ban. Not only did he lie, but he was insulting to people who emailed in favor of easing ban restrictions. I sent a copy of the letter I sent him to the Sun, AND to the Chamber of Commerce. After being insulted I have NO intention of bringing myself OR my friends to Vegas. You have let these pharma paid busybodies ruin the adult atmosphere of Vegas! And Menendo is a bald faced LIAR! Cy Ryan, ask to see his emails, if he wants to prove he ISN"T lying he'll show them to you.
By Pat_G

5/16/09 at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

I was in Las Vegas this past New Year's Eve, however, with the annihilation of this Bill, I won't be coming back. I simply cannot stand all these rules and regulations in Las Vegas, where ADULTS go to have fun. Ban the kids instead - they have no place in the adult playground of the world.
By virgilk

5/16/09 at 7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

I know of a few people who will not be going back to Vagus. I was going but that is now out of the question.
Since everyone over 30 has been raised around SHS/ETS,and SHS/ETS IS SUPPOSED TO BE SO DEADLY, why are Baby Boomers the longest living of all generations? Why, since smoking has dropped from 54% to 24%, are all the diseases supposedly caused by smoking, on the rise every year? California has the oldest smoking ban and their Asthma rate is 16% and Kentucky has only a 6% rate of Asthma with the highest rate of Smoking? Why do Anti's still say SHS/ETS KILLS, when the EPA Report they base their statements on was found to be a FRAUD by Federal Judge Osteen and two Congressional Committees?

Why, did the longest/largest studies by the ACS and the WHO find SHS/ETS had no connection to Cancer or Heart Disease? Why are there more than 250 other studies with the same findings?
By jredheadgirl

5/16/09 at 9:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

I won't be coming to Vegas with my friends. Congratulations to the committee and the nurse who testified that bar owners don't know what they're talking about when it comes to running their own business. Brilliant.

It's obvious that the anti-smoking brigade is corrupt:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...
By castle

5/16/09 at 9:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

If second hand smoke does in fact pose a health danger why is it only being "restricted"? If I were to start firing a weapon on Las Vegas Blvd my second hand bullets would not be restricted; I would be in jail or dead from Metro.

Is it because the product is legal? Somewhere there is MONEY involved as usual with most restrictions.
By Cantiloper

5/17/09 at 12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

The article notes, "Tavern owners have testified they lost 25 percent of their business" Unfortunately it's hard to pinpoint *exactly* how much the ban has cost Nevada and its taxpayers outside of the casino losses that accompany even partial bans (See:

http://arclightzero.web.officelive.com/D...

for a pretty clear example.)

But despite that, it *is* possible to get a rough idea of what this "25%" multiplied by thousands of businesses across the state might amount to. If you go to:

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257....

and read the Economics section of the "Stiletto" there you'll see the impacts over periods of years of smoking bans on state economies and hospitality businesses. The underlying study that produced the data in the Stiletto is all public record, fully verifiable and the details can be seen here:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic....

The Nevada Assembly committee chose to ignore a very real problem simply because they were afraid to stand up to a powerful lobby. Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. Their basis is built on a foundation of whipped up and unjustified fears about the effects of wisps of smoken in well-ventilated venues and they should be overturned and replaced with simple and universal Clean Indoor Air standards.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
By labdaddy

5/18/09 at 8:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Thanks, Carson City, for realizing that we're too stupid to just stay away from smoking establishments if we don't want to breathe in second hand smoke. Having to make responsible decisions without the government's help is way too hard. Thanks, California (oops, I mean Nevada)!
By Chinga

9/14/09 at 12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Its all a bunch of BS anyway.. we here in Nevada do as we please.. and for the most part IGNORE this fake smoking ban. Remember that leftists.. we do as we want and ignore big brother here.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question