Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, June 10, 2011 | 2 a.m.
CARSON CITY — In Carson City, they talk of budgets in billions — with a b — and the long-range effect of policy as if bills were fluttering butterfly wings in Indonesia capable of creating hurricanes off the Florida coast.
They set spending levels for K-12 schools, colleges and universities and social programs such as welfare. They also write and revamp laws that affect more mundane aspects of life — staffing at the DMV, rules of the road or how to shop for a hospital. Here are six bills passed by the 2011 Legislature that might affect you:
Photo by Drew Perine/AP
1. Cellphones and driving
Nevada roads might be safer, but a little less free. Talking on a handheld cellphone while driving and texting while driving will be illegal if Gov. Brian Sandoval signs Senate Bill 140.
Officers will be giving out warnings until Jan. 1. After that, the fine is $50 for the first offense, $100 for the second and $250 for the third offense within seven years.
You can still talk on the phone if you have a hands-free device. (The law, thankfully, allows you to use your hands to “activate, deactivate or initiate a feature or function on the device.”) Those who don’t like the bill can console themselves by buying stock in RadioShack, which is sure to sell a lot of earpieces in the coming months.
2. Smoking in bars
If the cellphone ban was a blow to Nevada’s libertarian image, Assembly Bill 571 more than makes up for it. It will now be legal to smoke and eat in 21-and-over establishments despite voters’ wishes.
The bill changed a voter-approved ban on locations serving food and allowing smoking.
In a clever bit of framing, so-called “smoking bill” advocates tried to rebrand it as the “cheeseburger bill.” Instead, locations that only admit those over 21 will be allowed to serve food and allow smoking if they choose. The bill awaits the governor’s signature.
Photo by Justin M. Bowen
3. Boulder City toll road
Boulder City — a nice place to live, maybe not the nicest place to drive. To get around the traffic backup in Boulder City that has plagued the town since the new bridge to Arizona opened, Sen. Joe Hardy, R-Boulder City, got legislative approval for a toll road pilot project that would route nonlocal traffic around the town. Sandoval is expected to sign the bill.
The bypass would cost $400 million, and be privately financed. And no charge could be placed on existing roads. The bill though requires the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada to enter into an agreement for the design, planning and construction. The toll road would connect the area in the vicinity of U.S. 93/95 Mile Post 58 to U.S. 93 Mile Post 2.
Photo by Sam Morris
4. $3 cab fee cemented in law
If you use cabs and credit/debit cards in Las Vegas it’ll continue to cost you more.
Cab companies in Southern Nevada quietly began assessing a $3 fee each time a passenger swiped a credit card to pay a fare. It’s a rate that some lawmakers and credit card companies say is too high.
It also might not have been explicitly allowed in law. One cab company, Frias Transportation, fought to get the fee put into state law. The bill passed despite objections.
Photo by Leila Navidi
5. Do No Harm
Patients will be able to compare hospitals and medical facilities’ safety records by looking at data the facilities have to report to the state. The Nevada Health and Human Services Department will establish a website to compare rates of infections, preventable accidents and other so-called “sentinel events.”
Sandoval has signed one bill that would make data available. Other bills that would present even more information — such as how often patients are readmitted to hospitals — await his signature.
6. Campaign finance law
Maybe you think campaign finance law only matters if you’re a gadfly. But much legislation can be tied back to one powerful source — campaign contributions.
Until this session, Nevada’s system has been opaque, regularly receiving an F from national watchdog groups. But Assembly Bill 452, which is awaiting the governor’s signature, would change that. Lawmakers would have to file campaign expenses and contributions electronically with the secretary of state’s office. That, according to a spokeswoman, would allow people to sort campaign contributions by donor and amount, providing greater transparency to everything the Legislature does, from taxi fees to hospital regulations.
The cellphone Bill shows the ignorance of both the politicians and the law enforcement groups and others that pushed it. If they wanted to improve safety they would have had to ban all cellphone use, and that would not get passed. Of course, law enforcement is exempted and the politicians will ignore the law anyway.
Numerous studies show there is no improvement in safety using headsets or hands free devices. Basic science and logic are not being used by the advocates of the se;f appointed nannys.
http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/201008...
If it is so dangerous, then why not require law enforcement to be covered by the law?
This is just one of those "feel good" laws. How are they going to enforce it? "Oh Officer, I was just trying to initiate the hands free option on the phone".....Are they going to start seizing cell phones as evidence? I'm all for decreasing accidents, but statistics in other states has shown that these laws do absolutely nothing.
So while driving I can still eat my big mac, drink my 32 oz, play with the radio, yell at my kids in the back seat, talk to my passenger, look at all the pretty neon signs on the strip, and so on. Crazy waste of time and taxpayers money which would be better spent on improving our economy.
Comment removed by moderator. Comment was in all caps.
Welcome to the Nanny State of Nevaduh! Soon to be a California lookalike!
Homeboy,
It's too bad that Nevaduhn's REQUIRE a Nanny.
If people had a lick of sense, and weren't so lost in their own little private Idaho's and therefore inimical to Public Safety, Society wouldn't find it necessary to pass laws that say, "Hey NITWIT! You are INCAPABLE of driving and talking/texting/web surfing on your phone at the same time. Don't fret; you are not alone! Scientific studies have proven that YOUR BRAIN is not wired to be able to multitask in such a fashion. HANG UP & DRIVE!"
Any bill to liberalize smoking is irresponsible and self defeating. It runs contrary to voter mandate. It will also be subject to counter measures and lawsuits, issues of worker safety, and non smokers rights. Increasing the risk of respiratory illness and the cost of health care to accommodate smokers is foolish and will eventually be overruled. Nevada needs to join the modern world.
I have to agree with snuffles2 that if it is such a good law, law enforcement personnel should not be exxempt. Metro officers ignored the seat belt law for many years until some of them died. Now they have to obey the seat belt laws like everyone else.
How many officers will have to be injured or killed while talking on their (personal, not police department issued) cell phones before the sheriff required them to oby this law, too?
@wizardofOz...
"ONLY POLITICAL IDIOTS WOULD WRITE AND THEN AGREE TO LAW(S) CLAMPING DOWN ON CELLPHONES WHICH CAUSE NO INHERENT SAFETY ISSUES ON THE ROAD"...
Gee, WIZ!!!
Where do you get your information from, Wiz? The Tin Man???
I'm sorry to have disparaged the Tin Man...
It's actually the Scarecrow that Wiz gleans his data from.
mr dip---You really think cops will be downloading my cellphone? I think you need to use some common sense.
So if you work in a bar and you are under 21, then the law exempts your lungs?
If you have a problem with cigarette smoke, don't go into bars that permit smoking. Now hang up and drive.
"It will now be legal to smoke and eat in 21-and-over establishments despite voters' wishes."
"Any bill to liberalize smoking is irresponsible and self defeating. It runs contrary to voter mandate."
oldPSUguy -- this is not a democracy, this is a republic. That means when the voters approve a law, no matter what kind of majority, if it's unConstitutional it's not really law. So regardless of your opinion not all of us are subject to the tyranny of the herd.
"Bans on public smoking aren't an infringement only on the rights of smokers, they're an infringement on the rights of property owners. If I invest my own money or risk my own financial security by taking out a loan to start up a pub or restaurant, I ought to be able to serve my customers on my own terms. And my customers and employees ought to be free to make their own decisions about the risks they're willing to undertake in exchange for service or employment. . . Smoking bans tend to have a minimal effect on large and chain restaurants. But when it comes to smaller, more independent businesses -- pubs, diners, bowling alleys and the like -- bans can be devastating. " -- Radley Balko's article in the Washington Examiner, February 16, 2005.
"oldPSUguy -- this is not a democracy, this is a republic. That means when the voters approve a law, no matter what kind of majority, if it's unConstitutional it's not really law"
Public health is not a matter of rule of the majority per se. In fact it may be representative of minority rights, the rights of those who have health issues concerning smoke exposure in public places. Smokers have taken to trying to use the Constitution to defend their right to expose others to their smoke. They have managed to gain a temporary victory in this legal battle, but eventually they will be overruled. The rights of smokers, and business people who think they can cater to the public, and still avoid be taken to task for smoke exposure will eventually lose, it is just a matter of time.
Hey oldPSUguy, it is very simple do not patronize plces that allow smoking. No one is exposing you to anything if you choose to patronize places where people smoke you are exposing yourself. Stop trying to force other people to conform to your ideals.
"The rights of smokers, and business people who think they can cater to the public, "
They are catering to the smoking public, simply do not go there.
In the middle of your driving teat and you answered your cell phone, would you pass? You idiots can still talk on the phone just get a hands free. And if you think that is taking away from your freedoms. Then lets legalize drunkard driving.
You've got to email the governor and express that you want him to veto Bill 571! It is ridiculous that this backassward bill made it this far. You can find the link at nv.gov It is time people take a stand and make some noise for a healthier and better NV. Otherwise you are just letting the rich lobbyist who only care about their own agenda speak.
@LVFAIRFAX - I really don't get these rabid non-smoking types. How much simpler could it be, if you dislike smokers that much, stay away from places where people are smoking. Is it really that hard to understand? I believe they just want to stick there noses where they don't belong and want to be PITAs because they have no lives. They couldn't care less about the health of people they don't even know, they just want everything their way.
I think the anti-smoking crowd pushed their envelope a bit too far with their 2nd hand smoke (mostly debunked), then 3rd hand smoke (smoke on your clothes) and then 4th and 5th hand smoke (seeing someone across the street with a cigarette in their hand)(that last one I just made up, but...). They went too far and finally people stopped believing them. Enough, I say. I know I'd rather drive on the road with someone who had smoked four cigarettes in the bar than someone who downed four cocktails. Maybe it's time to go after those non-smoking drunks a little harder. Let's get it on the ballot.
"EVERY BUSINESS SERVES THE PUBLIC AT THE BEHEST OF THE PUBLIC."
wizardofOz -- you get that from where? So long as your "public" is the actual customers of "every business" then there's no disagreement on that point. It's common sense business/commerce is driven by, among other factors, offering what their patrons want. LVFAIRFAX and moogie's posts got it right -- it's about choice.
But the rest of your post doesn't support that point, especially with your "Only the radical tobacco lobby keeps cancerous smoking alive and well." You're disconnected from reality if that's what you really think -- since at least the 60s popular electric advertising has been outlawed, dire warnings forced on every pack, and millions to local anti-tobacco campaigns have blared how bad using that natural product is, yet people continue to smoke, chew and sniff it. Especially when you consider it's been smoked since the beginning of recorded history, you're a long way from being truthful here.
"And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke." -- Rudyard Kipling "The Betrothed"
To Moogie..I really don't understand your selfish attitude. It is only easy for those that have the superficial thinking abilities like yourself. Looking at it financial standpoint alone, smoking effects everyone. Do you have any idea how much money the government has to shell out in medicare and medicaid (not even bringing up the private sector) because of people who smoke? Probably not. So my nose does belong in the anti smoking campaign because I pay hefty taxes (do you?) that will eventually fund your disability payments. Oh..and as a health care provider, I do care about the health of strangers. More than I can say for you.