Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleProposal would allow food service in restaurant bars that allow smoking
Friday, June 18, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.
Reader poll
Beyond the Sun
Sun archives
- Court: Smoking ban constitutional, minus criminal sanctions (9-24-2009)
- Study arms smoking foes (5-7-2009)
- Closer look at smoking ban (5-1-2009)
- Casino restaurant patrons can't elude secondhand smoke (1-16-2009)
- Study finds high pollution levels in casino restaurants (1-15-2009)
- Smoking ban tests resourcefulness (7-30-2007)
- Smoking ban not doing all the banning sponsors hoped (7-21-2009)
- 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)
Current law
Business owners can establish segregated bar and restaurant areas with separate entrances and ventilation systems. Smokers can bring food to the bar or have it delivered to the entrance.Proposed change
The Health Board will consider a change in the food provision to allow restaurant employees to deliver food to patrons in the bar. Diners could still bring their own food.Although voters delivered a clear message with passage of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act in 2006 that they didn’t want smoking in restaurants, state health officials this morning will consider a regulation that anti-smoking advocates say would violate the law.
The seven-member State Health Board will consider a proposal that would allow a restaurant to create a physically segregated bar with a separate ventilation system where smoking would be allowed and food could be eaten. Bar patrons would either bring their own food or could have food delivered in a container by a restaurant employee.
Such modifications in Clark County would have to be approved by the Southern Nevada Health District.
The Colorado-based anti-smoking advocacy group, Smoke-Free Gaming, is fuming. Chairwoman Stephanie Steinberg said Thursday the regulation would circumvent voters’ demands to prohibit smoking in places that serve food.
“They are attempting to legislate and change the law when they have no authority to do so,” Steinberg said of the board members. “In no other states that have clean indoor air laws are health authorities trying to change the law.
“It’s despicable, actually. They all know the dangers of secondhand smoke, but they’re being influenced by the opposition to the law.”
Other groups fighting the proposal include the American Cancer Society, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights and the American Lung Association.
The Health District — based on its interpretation of the law — allows businesses to operate a separate restaurant and bar under one roof provided the two areas have separate entrances and ventilation systems, district spokeswoman Jennifer Sizemore said. In such cases, the bar is not allowed to serve food. But customers can bring their own food or have it delivered to the bar’s entrance, she said.
Under the proposed regulation, though, a restaurant employee would be allowed to deliver food into the bar.
“We feel that would violate the purpose of the law,” Sizemore said.
The Nevada Tavern Owners Association has opposed aspects of the law. But until the Sun contacted association officials Thursday, they weren’t aware of today’s hearing, they said. One official is Blue Ox Tavern owner Ron Aronsohn, chairman of the association’s political action committee.
“This caught us by surprise, and we’re not prepared to respond,” he said.
But Aronsohn had at least one complaint about the proposal: “What they’re trying to do is to change the law so that it would be up to the businesses to enforce it rather than the Health District.”
The district has won some court battles to enforce the law — notably Irene’s Grill, which agreed to stop serving food in its bar, and Bilbo’s Bar and Grill, which was ordered to remove ashtrays and matches.
But Sizemore said the Health District has not fined people who smoke in prohibited areas despite being authorized to do so. The fine is $100 for each violation.
“Our inspection staff is not trained to go up to individuals and ask for IDs,” she said. “They are trained to inspect facilities that have permits. It’s a whole new ballgame to go up to individuals who smoke and issue citations.”
Even though the ban was upheld last year by the Nevada Supreme Court, Sizemore said the district has chosen to use its clout over businesses it regulates to make sure they are complying with the law.
“Early on, we sent them letters and most of them complied right away,” Sizemore said.
The law also extended the ban to child-care facilities, movie theaters, video arcades, malls, grocery stores, retail outlets, government buildings and other public places.
Although the law was passed by 54 percent of the voters statewide, tavern owners who complained it would jeopardize their business by driving away customers have put up every roadblock they could to stave off enforcement.
They even gained the ear of the state Senate, which voted 14-5 last year to approve a bill that would have allowed bars to serve food to customers as long as minors were not permitted in those establishments. But the bill died in the Assembly.
After the Supreme Court issued its ruling in September to uphold the law, health officials began drafting proposed regulations to help with enforcement.
Other proposals on today’s agenda would require:
• Indoor businesses to establish ways to communicate that smoking is prohibited within the establishment.
• “No Smoking” signs to be posted with contrasting colors.
• Customers to have smoke-free routes to restrooms.
The proposals also would allow the Health District to suspend or revoke the permit of any business that violates the law, and would give an individual the right to appeal.
The hearing also will attempt to clarify various interpretations of the law, Nevada Health and Human Services spokeswoman Martha Framsted said.
“We’ll have more answers after the presentations,” she said.
The 9 a.m. hearing will be videoconferenced to Room 4412 of the Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., and the public can participate.
Discussion: 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. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Clint Holmes is a big deal at Cabaret Jazz and 'The Carlyle!'; Playboy's furry-ous closing; Elvis is a 'Legend'
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack (1 Comment)
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Nothing good for Las Vegas will come from banning smoking in the casinos. Gamblers smoke. It's a disgusting habit, however anti smoking laws have destroyed the bar scene wherever they have been imposed resulting in huge losses of revenue and even closure of businesses. Not good..
I'm all for not allowing smoking in restaurants but can't get too worked up about banning food in places where people are allowed to smoke.
I'm not sure what they think the food ban fixes. Do they think that starving the smokers will make them quit?
If you can put up a sign saying this is a lisc. no under 21, this is adult oriented, no under 18, why can't you say this is a smoking facility and allow the owner of the business, the investor of that business, the tax payer of that business, to put up "This is a smoking establishment" and let consumers decide with their wallets?
Las Vegas, Nevada......coming to their free market senses?
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010...
Air quality test results of secondhand smoke by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......proving that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007...
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007...
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004...
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006...
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008...
All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace "health hazard".
Conversely, the effects of unnecessary, pharmaceutical nicotine funded, smoking ban laws have been profoundly detrimental:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009...
"They are attempting to legislate and change the law when they have no authority to do so," Steinberg said of the board members. "In no other states that have clean indoor air laws are health authorities trying to change the law.
"It's despicable, actually. They all know the dangers of secondhand smoke, but they're being influenced by the opposition to the law."
Here we go again with the Smoke Nazis and their agenda of world domination -- and all for our own good, donchanknow.
The "dangers of secondhand smoke" is all but a complete hoax. For perspective have a look @ "Please Do Smoke, If You Like" http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_... --
"Of course, 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. Fortunately, the world can accommodate their desires along with those of people who don't mind tobacco smoke, just as it can accommodate people who like Chinese food and people who prefer hamburgers. Restaurant and bar owners want to make money, and they do so by catering to different market niches."
As the authors opined "Liberal societies allow people to make decisions that others don't like." Apparently not where the Smoke Nazis and their ilk decide we all have to live according to their standards.
Also see "The New Cigarette Paternalism" @ http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv...
It's all about choice, People, and the ever-expanding Police State.
Why then do we vote on anything at all. If the people said no back in '06 then it should stay no. If the smokers would have voted this may be different, but at the time the majority said NO. If we are allowed to pick and choose which laws we follow, then I choose not to pay sales taxes. Don't think that will go over too well with the state. This sounds like when we were kids playing a game and losing we would always shout " new rule" . Get over it, we're not kids and can't change the rules mid game!
KillerB, This is even a better link about smoking. It destroys the lies that are told about the number of deaths and how the anti-smoking people lie about the numbers.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv...
When will whole milk be banned? Considering drinking whole milk is 8 times more likely to cause lung cancer than second hand smoke is and people give it to their babies everyday. Should they, the parents, be charged with child abuse for exposing their children to such a risk to their health?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61Ol1ICvq...
Butt Out - South Park commentary on smoking
The Smoking law was a bad law for Taverns and their patrons, but the law was passed and the State Health department wants to make regulations to override the the law and the vote of the people. Currently, most taverns in Las Vegas have re opened their restaurants and are allowing smoking. The Southern Nevada Health District is doing nothing about enforcing the Smoking law. If the government does not want to follow laws voted in by the people, why should the people follow laws voted in by the government? www.mybhi.com
We are a constitutional republic. That means that a majority of people are not supposed to be allowed to take away certain rights of others. This law was flawed in the first place as it took away the rights of business owners to run their businesses. People who don't like places that allow smoking have the right not to go there. As bossjdhog above states...tell the owner what you think with your pocketbook. If enough people tell a business owner that they are not going to their place due to smoke, and the business owner starts losing money, chances are they will change their policy. If they are able to stay in business, that would indicate that there are people who want that sort of establishment. Who is to tell them that they cannot have it? If the health of kids who are stuck with the decisions of their parents is a concern, how about a law that kids under 18 are not allowed in businesses that allow smoking. Just my two cents. I am sure this will bother someone who thinks that there must be a law for everything they want, no matter the effect on others.
SMOKING SHOULD BE ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE.
Another SHINING example of what a cesspool Nevada is:
Nothing more the gambling, booze, CIGARETTES, divorce and whores.
Fire all these jerks that are proposing this pro-smoking crapola.
ASAP......
Once again El Capital Wizard enlightens and decree's the truth of the world! (VERY sarcastic)
hermit -- I've used that link before, since every few months the Smoke Nazis stir it up again here. "LIES, DAMNED LIES,& 400,000 SMOKING-RELATED DEATHS" is quite excellent and should be required reading for all reasonable participants here.
Patrick_R -- good one! Trey & Matt strike again for freedom everywhere! The best is from about 3:00 one where they mention Vegas bars and the bottom line on all this -- it's up to the bar owners, not the people who don't like others taking their liberties where they can.
"SMOKING SHOULD BE ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE."
wizardofwhatever -- you were irrelevant then, you're herdspeak post is even more irrelevant now. Your "pro-smoking crapola" comment shows you know absolutely nothing of where you live and how righteous laws are made. hcinnv explained that quite well.
"Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends... ...when millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression made a policy, as at present over a large part of the world, and as it has often been in the past, it must be at the behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for what they consider a worthy object." -- Isabel Paterson 1943 "The God of the Machine"
In April, the revenue on the Strip was down 1%. Revenue on Boulder Hwy casinos was down 25%. I feel one reason for the Boulder downturn was exactly what the casino owners said "People have choices."
Boulder is lined with "cigarette stinker" casinos that have low ceilings and almost non-existent ventilation systems. So that's fine for the 22% or so of our population of nicotine addicts.
But what about the rest of the people in the area who don't like to smell like a cigarette butt? They go elsewhere. One newer casino on Boulder Hwy has high ceilings and excellent ventilation. Always seems busy to me.
Plus the smokers are dying off much more quickly. And the lack of replacements will make matters worse for the "Stinkers". I do feel bad for the employees who don't smoke, and come home smelling like Humphrey Bogart every night. Oh, well, you gotta' work in this rotten economy.
Here's a bit of history -- Hitler was the original Smoke Nazi. Check it @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_smokin...
So "Smoke Nazi" is quite an accurate label here, it's not childish name-calling.
Personally, I grew up a non-smoker, and only in the last 6-7 years do I enjoy the occasional cigar. It's about respect for private property and personal choices.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H Tiffany (1819)
Reading these comments, it seems people aren't paying attention. This isn't about banning smoking. Smoking is allowed already in the bar. It's about re-working the rule to also now allow food to be served. It doesn't increase the number of places people can smoke, it just lets the smokers eat too.
If we see you smoking we will assume you are on fire and we will take appropriate action.
I think its lunacy to allow smokers to sit and smoke and drink, but not let them buy so much as one Frito to off set the alcohol. while non smokers are allowed to eat..whats THAT all about?! I don't eat out anymore. I don't want a cup of coffee without my cigarette..why couldn't they have just kept the separate areas? why can't we have smokers restaurants? non smokers could exercise their free will and eat there, but not be allowed to wave a napkin or menu at us, or wimp about the smoke issues. the wait staff would have a choice, work at a smokers place or not..I'd rather not have a bunch of crying kids out too late eating near me anyway, so that takes care of 'family' groups that like to complain too.
The casinos and pro-tobacco lobbyists shot themselves in the foot with that bill...that's why we're still having the debate four years later.
If you remember, there were two bills, 14 and 15, if memory serves. One was a true anti-smoking bill, the other was a pro-smoking smokescreen (sorry) designed to look like public smoking reform but actually weakened smoking laws and included things like allowing smoking in daycare facilities with under so many kids, smoking in grocery stores, etc. Voters were confused and frustrated and pulled the lever on the one that sounded the least confusing and nefarious.
The moral of that story: if the casinos and bars want pro-smoking-gambler reform, campaign for it but be honest about what you're proposing, or run the risk of digging the hole deeper. Limit it to bars/adult areas. Put out an honest bill limited to adult-only gaming areas, and I wouldn't be surprised if you won.
"It's about re-working the rule to also now allow food to be served."
vegasstudent -- it's also about the legality of the original law. Those here standing on "the law's the law" are just engaging in herdthink. They don't understand ALL laws must be harmony with the Constitutions or they are automatically void.
"Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." -- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)
The people got duped into passing this no-smoking law in the first place. They put two questions pertaining to smoking next to each other on the ballot, and the explanations of what you were voting for was shady. It was a slick move that never should have happened. I agree, let consumers decide with thier wallets. If an establishment allows smoking, you can chooose not to go there and you can choose not to work there.
54% is still a majority, whether or not you choose to believe it. More wanted it than did not!
@LivinInLV-
Your statement that a "majority said NO" is quite disingenuous. First, 54% is a PLURALITY, not a majority. Second, this is a plurality of actual voters, which is probably around 35-45% of the voting-eligible population. Therefore a 54% plurality of less than 50% of the population, or about 27% (on the high side) of the population has imposed their will on the majority of the people.
The nanny-state, pro-union, big government movement is also attempting to use this same perversion of democracy to allow two people to impose collective bargaining agreements on firms with 3 to 300,000 employees, by recognizing that a "majority vote" of "voting employees" is the only necessary threshold to organizing unions.
The minority ruling the majority. Isn't there a word for that?..
Maybe more of you smokers should have given a dam and went out and voted. As for those that did, the majority said no. Put your cigarettes down and vote. Oh, that's right voting locations were non- smoking as well, so everyone stayed away!
They need to figure out something because all the bars just stopped serving food instead of losing their smoking/gambling/drinking customers. So as you drive around town and see all the "bar and food" signs try stopping in and finding something to eat. If the place was there before the smoking ban, they won't have food but they will have smoking. Is that what voter's wanted when they passed the referendum?
@LivinInLV-
A) I don't smoke.
B) 54% is NOT a majority. By definition, it is a plurality.
If you can refute these facts, please respond. If not, in the gentle words of Dick Cheney,
"...go ---- yourself."
54% is, by definition, a majority; i.e., greater than half of the total. If we are to redefine "majority" as the majority of all eligible voters in the state, then, by that definition, nothing will ever be decided by majority and will always be a plurality, as not all eligible voters will always vote. However, majority vs plurality is typically reflective of the number of those who voted, not those who are affected by the vote or were eligible to vote. See Robert's Rules of Order for standard usage of the terms.
http://www.rulesonline.com/rror--04.htm#...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/m...
Oh please. We're so dumb as a society we can't amend a ridiculous law? The law was poorly written in the first place.
@jeremydbrooks-
I stand red-facedly mistaken, you are correct, sir.
However, I will stand by my point that such law was effectively enacted by a minority, and thus, is the imposition of the will of a few against the many. A better approach to voter initiative and referendums would be a requirement of qualifying turnout as a quorum. The legislative equivalent would be if only three elected officials from a body of ten held a vote on legislation affecting at least half of a population, with two for, and one opposed.
Such a measure would not be required for electing office-holders, only for "voter-initiated" legislation or referendum. All actionable voting questions should require a quorum.
All I have say is,
"Where is the 2-year-old Indonesian Baby Ardi Rizal going to smoke when he comes in to town?
Is there a ban on smoking in day care.
You could wiggle out of it by suggesting that 54 percent of the voters (given our low voter turnout) do not make up a majority of the adult population. OR you could simply hit home the fact that a voting majority is not necessarily right - just remembering how long we had slavery and racial segregation.
Personally, I would prefer that new laws can only be added by a 2/3rds vote in favor but also allow that laws can be repealed by a 1/3rd vote. If you can't get 2/3rds of the people to support a law while 1/3rd of the people can't live with the law, then you shouldn't have the law.
This sounds not like a question of whether or not to allow smoking where people are eating, but to allow eating where smoking is still allowed. An anti eating law, I guess.
I'm not a smoker, but I see nothing wrong with serving food in those areas where smoking is still allowed. I'd rather they allow food in a room alresdy full of smoke, than to allow smoke in a room full of diners.
OMG I cough just THINKING about that crazy little Indonesian baby smoking all those cigs. SERIOUSLY !!
Smoke em if you got em. I don't but if Las Vegas prices are like here ($6 a pack) wait a little longer and you will need a mortgage to purchase a carton. How to tax a legal product out of existence.
Tobacco is legal. There is simply no reason the government should be involved in deciding whether a private business that targets adults should permit it.
"Given the current climate in the US, smoking is already a subversive act..."
nitro -- like that comment!
"The Fuhrer is always right." -- Joachim von Ribbentrop, the 1939 Konigsberg address
Sorry nazi quoters, smokers violate others, not vice versa.
"Sorry nazi quoters, smokers violate others, not vice versa."
Aprilgirl12 -- if you looked beyond the headlines and the herd posts you'd see this is about a lot more than someone blowing cigarette smoke in your face. Mostly it's about a zealous minority armed with junk science and flimsy factoids presuming to dictate what can and can't be done on private property.
Clarify or back up what you posted. Otherwise you're irrelevant to this Discussion.
The people have spoken. Keep the smelly cancer sticks at home.
"The people have spoken. Keep the smelly cancer sticks at home."
Nick -- besides proving how clueless you really are about how valid laws are made in this republic, how do you defend one's freedom to use tobacco away from home? Your logic proposes it's just as valid if a consensus of everyone else on your street dictated all houses are to be painted pink, including yours, and you are then compelled to repaint.
Until 'voters' help the business owner pay his operating expenses I REALLY don't see why they have a say in how he/she runs their business. Once again I will say - if a non-smoker doesn't like they smoky atmosphere they should GO SOMEPLACE ELSE!! I don't care how many voters spoke 'loud and clear' (thru their vote) the point is this should have NEVER been PUT to a vote to begin with. So much for living in a democracy huh? When people who don't pay the bills can tell the people who own the business and DO pay the bills what can and can't be 'allowed' in the OWNERS place of business there is really something awry with that picture. This is coming from a NON-SMOKER who just happens to believe that BUSINESS OWNERS have RIGHTS TOO!! Now to all the non-smoking voters - put THAT in your peace pipe and smoke it :)
LivinLV - I think the politicians should have snubbed this whole issue when it came time to decide if it was going to be put to a vote to begin with - I am AMAZED at the number of people smokers and non-smokers alike who don't seem to get that the REAL issue (as far as I'm concerned) is why people who do NOT own the business should have any say in how it's run. They could speak with their wallets (as someone else suggested) by not patronizing the business. Where will this all end - what if something YOU enjoy is suddenly put to a 'vote' and voters vote NAY.... will you still be 'ok' with the majority?? I think not.
To the person who wrote, gamblers smoke...yes, about 18% of them or less....so that means 82% or more DO NOT SMOKE....so something GOOD would come about banning smoking,,just as it is in Delaware and New York, Illinois and (75%) of NJ casinos. Some restaurants cried that the sky was falling in NJ in 2006 when the state went smokefree 100% and guess what?? they did better than when it was smoking.
People adjust, just as they used to smoke on Airplanes, and buses and in malls..remember?? not anymore.
It is a health issue. Smoke in your own home if you want, not around others who can be harmed.
why should restaurants or casinos be any different than other places where people are at risk and exposed to the dangers of secondhand smoke? Casino workers are treated as secondclass citizens. Ban smoking in workplaces, nationwide, in every state. Breathing is a necessity, smoking is not!
nancysug -- just another Smoke Nazi. Pay attention -- secondhand smoke is largely a hoax.
nitro -- well posted.
Don't forget obesity. Or not using coasters under one's drinks. When it comes to dictating what can and can't be done on private property, after prohibition and the stupid sodomy laws, seems government just can't seem to recognize limitations to its authority. And the citizens who suggest these laws seem to have no end in their zeal to make the rest of live like they want us to.
I think that this proposal should be stopped. Personally as a person who loves the vegas sites but hates smoke, and would go more often if the casinos banned smoking. I think that Nevada should join the other states where smoking is banned and the indoor air is clean, restraunts, bars, casinos, workplaces, you name it all. Smoking is a health hazard (read the Surgeon General's Report and some of the research center at TobaccoFreeKids.org). Some casinos are smoke free in other states and doing well (for example, Taos Mountain Casino in NM is 100% smoke free since it opened by choice). Many casinos in California, New Jersey, and other states are smokefree or have large non-smoking areas for gambling. I think that the motion that every bar or slot machine has to be in a smoking area is outdated because over 75% of the population are non-smokers and that is growing. In fact, some hotel chains (e.g. Marriott, Westin, Comfort Suites, etc) are all non-smoking in their rooms and hotel public areas nationwide.
There is no legitimate reason why not. It will not affect non smokers and smokers are going to smoke anyway. Taking the ban this far is just tyranny by control freaks.