(Jun. 6) —
Opponents of Nevada’s anti-smoking law lost a huge battle in court. A judge said she would force the Las Vegas tavern to comply with the law.
The Southern Nevada Health District says inspections on two occasions showed ashtrays and matches on the bar at Bilbo’s.
Bilbo’s was the first tavern the health district has taken to court for breaking the smoking ban enacted into law last year.
Do you support the ban or do you support the taverns? Sound off on Nevada’s smoking ban.
We have too many people living in Las Vegas, who do not belong to this city. Las Vegas is to be kept smoky, wild, free, entertaining, lawless, nude and all that 24/7.
Comment by Mika Koponen — December 4, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
I love it! I only wish all the Casinos would go totally non-smoking throughout the entire Hotel and Casino areas too.
Due to working in the Casino industry for 20 years, I will carry my years of second hand smoke as Asthma for the rest of my life,
Comment by florence cowan — December 4, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
I think Nevada should stay off the smoking bans bandwagon and leave well enough alone. Most smokers have the common sense to not smoke at schools or in the grocery stores–unless gambling (and only in the video slot section only). To impose smoking bans in taverns will only limit the consumers ability to find decent food in the wee hours of the morning–since most tavern owners are going to go with gaming and throw out food service altoghether. I thought this was Sin City and not an extention of California?
Comment by Rhonda Harvey — December 4, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
Whats next…. Sin City is now on the edge of Mormon Country. Why should tourists even come to vegas anymore??? They can gamble at any indian reservation… There is nothing special about comming to Vegas anymore… Now if the Casino’s Get together and pass the marajuana bill…. Then Tourism would INCREASE and once again There is something you can do in Sin City that you can not do anywhere else!!!
Comment by Mike DeMeere — December 4, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
I quit, so kiss off to smoking better for their health and mine
Comment by steve — December 4, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
Finally!! It seems as if every arrogant, dirtbag smoker takes great pleasure in blowing smoke in the face of others who try to sit in the pointless smoking sections, or when they are walking by you in public. Haha, now you can’t!! You are providing a service that KILLS people. If you want to do that , lock yourself in a windowless room and smoke your yellow self into a hole. Nicotene stays on you, your clothes, your skin and everything you own. It’s about time that it’s against the law for you to quit “sharing” with the rest of us.
Comment by Kendra — December 4, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Big deal! So what if there is no smoke inside a building?!? Eventually, we’ll have to step outside and breathe in that rust-colored toxic slime that is constantly hovering over the valley. Look at the big picture folks, less smoke indoors will not make us more healthy when we are surrounded by that Las Vegas “Cloud-of-Death”!
Comment by Marty — December 4, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
I am so glad!!! to be able to go into a place and not have that place filled with second hand smoke that I have to breathe into my body. Places like that are RANK…and I leave immediately.
Thanks for more of a SMOKE FREE NEVADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Rhetta — December 5, 2006 @ 12:54 am
Good job Nevada! I, for one will now drop 10-20 bucks in the grocery store slots! No more smokers blowing butt-fumes in there.I would also like to drink a glass of beer and play the bar top poker games without the smoke!. The establishments that comply will find the profits growing for a number of reasons:Non-smokers have more money,less sick employees and so on.
Comment by R.Daniels — December 5, 2006 @ 5:47 am
Your information is incorrect. Clark County residents DID NOT approve Question 5. It did not receive the majority of votes in Clark County but it did in the rest of the state. Secondly, Las Vegas IS NOT like other cities that have smoking bans. Other cities don’t have so many bars and taverns that rely on GAMING to pay the bills. Food is a money loser that is offered to customers. Now, we will have taverns with no food available to those who drink and we will have good TAX PAYING citizens out of work. Give all sides of the story.
Comment by Joe — December 5, 2006 @ 9:13 am
EVERYONE IS WORRIED ABOUT SECOND HAND SMOKE, AND THE STUFF THAT GIVES ME THE HEADACHE IS FROM POLLUTION. THAT DARK GRAY HAZY STUFF YOU SEE LINGERING OVER THE CITY AS YOU TOP THE HILL. NO ONE IS WORRIED ABOUT THAT.
Comment by Wendy — December 5, 2006 @ 9:26 am
Why don’t we just sent all the Bleeding Hearts BACK to California where they came from. I for one smoke, and at times like to relax after a meal with a cup of coffee and a cigarette. Although I don’t always do this, I would like to have that option available to me, and not dictated to by bureaucrats.
1984 and Big Brother have arrived!
Comment by E. D. Zuck — December 5, 2006 @ 9:54 am
I think it should be up to the business owners to decide whether or not smoking should be allowed in their establishments. The bigger picture here is government attempting to control our lives. Believe me it won’t stop here. This is a very dangerous precedent in regards to citizen’s liberties.
Comment by Jack — December 5, 2006 @ 10:18 am
This will cost many local bar/restaurants to go out of business, but will help the big casinos in the long run as the smoking gamblers are forced to go to their places. Stupid law.
Comment by Cole — December 5, 2006 @ 10:44 am
Part of the fun for me going to Las Vegas was that I could smoke without feeling guilty. Now I don’t know if I will be going there anymore. I will just go on the boats in Illinois where I can smoke and save the airfare.
Comment by John Aaron — December 5, 2006 @ 10:47 am
I say “HALLELUJAH!!!!” I’m a non-smoking, and I couldn’t be happier!
In fact, just two nights ago, my family and I went out to eat at a fancy restaurant, but they had a bar near the entrance, which allowed smoking. Even though we were in the non-smoking section, we could still smell the stench, and we thought about how anxious we are for Dec. 8th to come.
Thing is, if smokers want to pollute and rot their lungs, that’s their choice. However, for those who choose a healthier lifestyle, LET US HAVE HEALTHY ORGANS!!! Why should non-smokers have lung cancer because of other people’s addictions? Screw their whole “I’m a tax-payer, I have rights” crap, as we have rights to live longer and healthier WITHOUT breathing in that cancerous stench.
In fact, I went to Bodies: The Exhibition at Tropicana in Vegas over the weekend, and they had a real-life smoker’s lung alongside a non-smoker’s. The smoker’s lung was totally black and rotted, while the non-smoker’s was nice, clean, and pink. Kinda gives you a perspective of what your lungs look like if you suck on the cancer sticks.
Comment by Kim — December 5, 2006 @ 11:31 am
First smoking can still take place in casinos so enjoy. For some reasons people around the country think they wont be able to smoke in casinos.
I personally am tired of getting a non smoking table at a restaurant and having to still deal with smoke from two tables over.
RESIDENTS of Nevada passed this law, so be it, live with it. It does not matter where they came from or where they were born, the largest majority of people in this state want this law. That is the way it goes.
Who in their right mind came up with inhaling a non oxygen material into your lungs that turns them black, causes cancer and is addictive?
I would not mind smoking if it just did not have the habit of drifting away from the smoker 5 tables away and to my lungs.
Nevada will not collapse, food will taste better.
Comment by Vegas Resident — December 5, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
I think it’s great that good smoking laws will be taking effect in our city (Las Vegas)! It’s about time that us “non-smokers” have rights! As for the “smokers” who are complaining about this, they can smoke smoke themselves to death wherever they are allowed to smoke! Why not for once call our city “clean city”, instead of “sin city”? I’s so tired of the negative image given of our wonderful city of Las Vegas!.
Comment by Susana — December 5, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
I personally think it sucks. Las Vegas was the last place you could be where you were treated like an adult. Now, we might as well be in California. And we all know that California sucks. They want everybody to look like Arnold & Maria. All the goodie two shoes are ruining Las Vegas.
Comment by ron — December 5, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
I can see not smoking in restaurants but children should not be in bars/taverns whether they serve food or not. Nevada was a state unlike any other state until now. We’re California’s puppet!
Comment by Marti — December 5, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
I work at a resturant in a casino and I am a cashier. Where do they draw the line when it comes to customers lighting up in front of my face/register. Will the owner of the resturant make a sign that will say “No smoking beyond this point”? I don’t think so. I smell like an ash tray every time I go home.And I’m sick to my stomach. Yea, get another job they all say. Now that the bill has past, maybe I will look for a job where the resturant is not in a casino. The only problem is I’ll make less money, well that’s the sacrifice non-smokers have to make? Smokers have no consideration for others! Maybe there own child will die of second hand smoke, maybe not.
Comment by dee — December 5, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
The worst part of this whole law is the Double Standard that has been created between the smaller gaming establishments and the Casinos. If this law included the Casino floors as well, we would not be talking about this today. If Q5 goes through for sure, there will be alot of people out of work, just in time for the holidays!
Comment by Paul T. — December 5, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
I am so glad the smoking ban passed. It is about time! I cannot stand walking around the supermarket or eating out and having to smell nasty smoke.
Comment by Brittany — December 5, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
You can whine and moan about it but this entire lawsuit comes down to sour grapes. This measure was put forth to the voting public and it passed. Grow up and deal with it.
Comment by Kelly — December 5, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
If kids are allowed to enter an establishment then smoking should be banned. But when it comes to places such as bars with food, then children have no business being there and it is up to the customers to choose to go to a place that allows smoking. If you don’t want to be around 2nd hand smoke than go to family dining areas and stay out of bar & grill establishments. It isn’t all about the people who are non-smokers and don’t want to be bothered with the smell. Think about the people who will be out of work because a bar has to pick gaming over food service.
Comment by Wendy — December 5, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
All of us at work, mostly non-smokers, agree that Question 5 is a downfall for Nevada bar owners. All the passage of this law did was put small business owners of gaming establishments in financial trouble because of the hoops they will now have to hop thru to keep in the black. Most of the owners I have spoken with are going to put up a wall, separate door and ventilation system to in effect, make two establishments out of one. The bars will all eventually still have smoking, but the cost to these owners will be high. The food doesn’t make these guys any money anyway as they give most of it away in comps and certainly the non smokers who have said they’ll now come in for lunch and play the slots are NOTHING compared to the regulars who pump thousands into the coffers all the while, drinking, smoking and gambling. These regular patrons will now go to casinos, who by the way, I believe, created Question 5, as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Comment by Carol — December 5, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
This smoking ban is not for the Las Vegas area, I hear them say this is sin city. This ban is for the state of Nevada, the people have spoke their peace on the matter so lets not get some liberal judge involved and go against the voters of this great state:
Comment by George E. Rowe — December 5, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
It wont be okay to smoke in a restaurant because it affects the health of others, but any dirtbag gambler can blow smoke in a dealers face all day? KISS OFF! let em smoke!
Comment by BJ — December 5, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
I agree with most of the poster that most of the people that voted for Question 5 came from Calilfornia, they should go back. This makes it hard on everyone epecially the small bars. I think the companies should decide for themselves. CHILDREN DON’T BELONG IN BARS ANYWAY. A separate section should be allowed for smokers - we are being decriminated against. The air we breath is a lot worse than cigarette smoke and OSHA has proven it in Minnesota.
one smoker
Comment by Elizabeth Kleinman — December 5, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
There are a few people out there who bitch and moan about the smoking in bars with foodservice and yet at the same time take advantage of the tremendous value of the food that the establishment has to offer. Some of these people don’t even play the machines. They don’t seem to realize that their reasonably priced meal is because of mostly smoking slot players.
Comment by Ray G — December 5, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
I second Dee, if this law was effecting casino floors it never would have passed. This is a way to attract even more poeple to the casino floors where they can smoke freely. I dont smoke and I understand people’s frustration but what happens to the thousands of waitress’ in bars, bartenders etc. who will suffer job cuts or a decrease in income from tips. This is Las Vegas a place people come to do things they cant do elsewhere. Keep things the way they are!! Nobody is forced to live here so quit complaining.
Comment by ashley — December 5, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
So the voters saw thru the “smoke screen” of question 4 that the Tavern Owners aka Terrible Herbst tried to push over on us. Now they want to cry foul. Why did’nt they challenge question 5 before it was put on the ballot? I’ll tell you one thing, if question 4 would have passed and I went to court to challenge it THEY would be yelling all over the media “the people have spoken” Guess where I’m no longer buying my gas? Maybe if the other hundreds of thousands of voters who supported question 5 followed suit Terrible’s would get the point! THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!
Comment by Greg R — December 5, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
When the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are fully identified, I suggest that everyone who voted for Question 5 boycott those businesses.
Since Question 5 passed with a majority, that should prove to be more of a financial incentive for those businesses, that fighting to allow smoking.
Comment by Smokeless — December 5, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
I have mixed emotions. I don’t want to give the government more control over us citizens yet, I have a lung condition due to Lymes Disease and Valley Fever and get sick every time I have to walk passed a group of people smoking in a doorway of an office building. Sometimes I can get away with holding my breath and walking as fast as I can passed them, but that doesn’t always work. Or if I want to go to a buffet with my kids. Sorry guys but your smoking is hurting others.
Comment by Diana B. — December 5, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
I was born and raised in Las Vegas and have spent over 40 yrs here. I do believe that is healthier for people not to smoke.
I think the ban should reflect areas where kids are at and resturants (providing they have a patio area-outside for smokers). No casinos or bars should be forced to tell their frequent customers (who gamble,drink & smoke)that they can no longer smoke.
Those who don’t what to breathe second hand smoke- should probably frequent at some open/well aired bar. Smoke is gross and unhealthy, but smokers have rights too. They just choose to die quicker than most.
Comment by Ronda Young — December 5, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
I’m a bit annoyed that although with in their rights, that though the people spoke and voted by an overwelming majority for this to be law (and they have a right to–personal rights end at the point they affect the health and well being of others,) that Herbst and other companies who couldn’t buy the election with their cash and putting their weight behind it, will now try to force their patrons to do what they wish.
I’ll vote too. I’m not going to any more Herbst stations, or to any place that doesn’t comply with the smoking ban. I’m tired of having my children and myself wade through smoke to eat a nice dinner, or to shop in a grocery store, or to use a convenience store.
I hope the courts see quicky through this ruse–and note that equal protection does not apply to acts that can harm others.
Comment by Concerned Citizen — December 5, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
Smokers are selfish! It is obvious they have no regard for their health or the health of others. The voters have spoken - no smokin’!
Comment by Debbie — December 5, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
38 years ago when I moved to Southern Nevada, there used to be a little cloud over the plants in Henderson. We locals called it the “Henderson Cloud.” Now after all you people came from near and far the whole damn valley is covered by one big cloud…inside and out!
So, why don’t you all go back to where you came from!! This used to be a NICE place to live.
Comment by Jerry — December 5, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
Why must there be a new law against smokers? The majority of people do not smoke, good healty choice, BUT what gives them the right to dictate to those who do smoke? The smokers, or any other minority group, will never have a chance to beat a law directed at them. It is simple math.
Besides that, why should the government tell you where to smoke. I belive businesses, day cares, restaurants & such have policies in place already that seem to work fine.
I hate the smell of broccoli, but I do not believe all broccoli eaters should be banned from having it at their favorite restaurant.
Just wait until there is something you enjoy that a majority of people do not enjoy… how will you feel when that is taken from you? Maybe you will lose your job because of it? Just think.
(For the record, I am a non-smoking registered voter.)
Comment by Dennis — December 5, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
If the nonsmokers would have gone out and voted for this question not to pass they would not be complaining now. They should have all gotten together to say no this is not going to happen and then voted against it. Becuase they didn’t and more people voted to pass this question they are now mad at what they could have stoped but didn’t.
This question is not saying smoking is completely banned, no one in Nevada may ever smoke again. It is protecting those people who decided not to make the same dumb mistakes the people who started smoking did. We don’t want to have bad health because of the people who wanted to smoke. It was their choice not ours to smoke. Everyone had the same oppotunity to go out and vote on this question and apparently more people voted yes.
This also was not just a clark county question, it was a nevada question, which is why it was located under the NEVADA questions and not the NORTH LAS VEGAS questions!
Comment by Ashley — December 5, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
I want to know why the casino’s aren’t affected by #4 and #5..gee..I wonder! I am a smoker and I am mad as hell. I smoke cause I am so addicted..but I am not ready to quit yet. It is my choice..when I am ready. I don’t smoke in my home..but I would like to be able to be ready to chose my fate. I have lived here 27 years..raised my “non-smoking” children. Who are upstanding working with families..own homes and contribute to the community. Me too!. I am aware of people around me and I am a very polite person..but this law makes me so angry to take more of our “rights” away. Kid’s shouldn’t be in bars anyway..and I think that the CALIFORNIA influence has changed our state. I am originally from California myself). I moved here to be away from their smog. My children couldn’t have recess in the 70″s cause of their smog. Why are they moving here and trying to make Nevada..California? Thank you for letting me vent..as there are not many venues to help on our side too. Help us not choke us!
Comment by Jayne LaFavor — December 5, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
Last time I checked the United States of America was a democracy you know land of the free…since when did this become a dictatorship, I personally feel that MY RIGHTS have been violated by the ever increasing bans on smoking that are invading communities across the country.
Comment by SMOKER AND PROUD OF IT — December 5, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
This issue has already been decided! Voters have chosen health over the selfish desires of the minority smokers. Citizens are sick and tired of smokers total disregard for my health or the health of innocent children. These Taverns should be totally ashamed of themselves figting for smoke over health.
Comment by John — December 5, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
If something I’m doing is directly affecting the health of those around me, I don’t expect it to be my right to continue to do it. I’m not allowed to drink and get into my car…I’m not allowed to smoke marijuana and do, well, basically anything…..what makes this smoking ban so different from anything else?
Comment by Susan R — December 5, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
I enjoy going to resturants that have smoking, There is going to be alot of business that are going to close because of it. I am a smoker and alot of time I have to go to the non smoking section because the smoking section has a wait, I feel the business should decide for themselves where or not they want smoking there.
Comment by sandy — December 5, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
“wake up americia”
we are losing are freedom and are rights as United States citizens.
while your all caught up in your ha,ha’s
and your the people have spoken crap. “WAKE UP” our lives are changing fast.we are soon to be totally under control.just keep voting against each other and thinking we the people have won ,
we the people have fallen into thier hands and done excatly what they knew we would. vote another one of our rights away giving our government another win. So don’t be
so foolish look around. Ask your self what can we still do thats not been voted on. and watch
how much time it is tell it’s not legal.
we need to stay alive and free
or very soon we won’t
be.
Comment by nancy — December 5, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
I think the pollution that we are breathing in, due to half of California moving here, is much more dangerous to children than SMOKE IN A BAR OR CASINO where children shouldnt be anyway. If im banned from smoking in a bar then Californians should be banned from Vegas. We have to breathe the air outside!!! You have a choice not to go in a bar where there is smoke.
Comment by stacey — December 5, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
What are all you non smokers going to do when they force us to stop what is legal, and they raise your taxes. I bet then you will learn that in the USA we all have rights. I dont like perfume, makes me sick, lets ban it. I dont like green, ban it, I dont like blue cars, get them off my road. So people, whats next, you gonna tell me when I can go to the bathroom and when to brush my teeth too. Look around you, your goverment sure didnt clean the air that you voted for with the clean air act now did they.
Comment by Castle — December 5, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
I enjoy a good cigarette, but the thing I can’t stand is the smell of alcohol, either from the bottle or second-hand on the drinker’s breath. The only good thing about alcohol is that it is a faster killer! If you don’t believe me, just check out the deaths from car crashes driven by a drinker, and not just the alcoholic, either. It’s even worse when I have to fly. As for the ‘majority of voters’ rule, then why in the world can’t we say ‘Merry Christmas’ and have the ten commandments in public places when the majority of the public would vote in a heartbeat for those rights. It doesn’t make it any more right or wrong than smoking or drinking alcohol. I stay away from drinkers, and you can do the same when it comes to smokers, just go somewhere else. There are plenty of ‘upscale’ places that don’t allow smoking in their establishment, and that’s the way it should be…let the owner decide if he wants to lose my business or yours.
Comment by Janet — December 5, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
I think this smoking ban is going to be the worst thing that can happen to Las Vegas. I think that a lot of small business/bars will be going out of business and as one person said Las Vegas did not vote yes on question 5 the whole state did use a number. I enjoy a smoke after eating a good meal. Look like business are going to fight this stupid law.
Comment by Bob G — December 5, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
Hey I think the smoking ban is great.Too bad they did not do it sooner. I worked in the casinos for almost twenty years in nevada and I’m glad they finally banned in somwhere.I wish they would do it in the casinos too.
Comment by patti Kalambakal — December 5, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
some bars and mini markets will feel the loss in customers. the bars will lay off the cooks and waitresses and keep gaming and smoking. who wins? they should be given a dead line to comply or be grand fathered in. 30 days is not enough time to build seperate areas for non smoking customers. gw
Comment by gw — December 5, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
Check back in six months when people are complaining about the rise in unemployment, lack of convenient places to eat and $20 meals! Agreed family restaurants and grocery stores should be smoke free, but guess what…. kids do not belong in bars, and in some cases, certain restaurants! People eat at bars and taverns because the cost of the meal is less; it costs less because it is subsidized by gaming. MOST gamblers smoke while gambling and they pay the bills, not the family coming in for dinner! Families and kids do not have a right to eat in bars. Gamers and smokers do have a right to light up. Non-smokers (like myself) and do-gooders do have a right to not patronize or leave. So, for the rest of you age of majority idiots, you forfeited your right to choose thinking everyone will choose the right! I don’t know who is more stupid, the smoker trashing his life or the non-smoker trashing his rights. “Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY” – BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
Comment by Troy Bulloch — December 5, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
Im so tired of this myth that jobs would be lost,because some places would be forced to close there kitchens.That`s nothing but a bluff,and it was called by the voters.Most regular bar patrons are regulars because they don`t want to deal with the big casinos.I gamble just as much as a smoker does.and how many bar owners have taken a survey of how many smokers they have gambling compared to non smokers on a daily basis.(and who spends more)bottom line is that most smokers show no consideration when lighting up right next to you letting the smoke just bellow in your face,having me come home to my kids and wife smelling like a pack of menthol lights.what`s next,the weed advocates will sue over there question not being passed.
Comment by G. — December 5, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
If people hate second hand smoke so much, why do they go places that allow smoking? I go to smoke free resturants,grocery stores,pharmacy’s and I pay at the pump. Guess what, no second hand smoke. This smoking ban will be devastating for Las Vegas.
Comment by Kelly — December 5, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
Non-smokers outnumber smokers 10 to 1. Those who wish to continue smoking can step outside or switch to smoke-less tobacco. The majority of us can finally go out to our favorite tavern and enjoy a beer with our meal while we gamble
Comment by bob — December 5, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
I am glad, very glad. I hate smoke filled bars, most of the time I don’t go play pool or eat at local bars because I get all my clothes smelling like smoke.
Same at restaurants you get a non smoking table and the guy next to you is smoking what’s the point?
I hope it gets enforced and if it does I’ll go out more often.
The thing with smokers is they don’t notice how annoying smoke is until they quit and get all those toxins out of their lungs and taste buds.
Then they notice how their house or car smells : nasty.
Comment by L C — December 5, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
I’M SICK AND TIRED TO HEAR THIS IS LAS VEGAS WHERE YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT…WRONG!!!
SMOKERS HAVE NO CONSIDERATION. THEY LOVE TO BLOW SMOKE ON PEOPLES FACES LIKE ITS FUNNY. I WORK IN THE CASINO AND JUST BECAUSE YOU LOSE MONEY YOU THINK ITS FUNNY TO SMOKE 2PACKS AND BLOW SMOKE IN YOUR FACE NOT COOL.
SOOOOOOOOO HAPPY QUESTION 5 PASSED. LONG LIVE NON-SMOKERS!!!
Comment by TONY S. — December 5, 2006 @ 11:15 pm
The people have spoken! Let the law go in effect! Why can’t the Pro Question 4 camp understand and accept it? It was the Question 4 camp that ran those deceptive ads and now they lost. Learn to accept it.
Comment by Sincity — December 5, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
I’m so glad it passed and can’t wait for it to go into effect. It is totally disgusting to walk into a restaurant for breakfast and be hit by the stench of smoke. I was shocked to find it was legal when I moved here and glad to see it fixed.
The average Nevadan is about as bright as a small appliance bulb, trashy morals, low education, low wage jobs, self destructive habits, and seemingly proud of it. No wonder no self respecting knowledge based industries like finance, electronics, etc will headquarter here. There is no work force worth hiring. I can only hope that as the migration continues the place keeps changing for the better. Maybe someday there might be more than casino and construction jobs here. There may be hope yet.
Comment by Len — December 5, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
Well, I am a smoker, and that does not make me a second class citizen. I have lived in Nevada for 34 years, and it was a great place to live. All of those who are here now, should go back where they came from and stop bringing their issues to what was a free city. Oh yes, I could smoke 3000 cartons of cigarettes in my gagage with the door closed and walk out. But if I turn my car engine on and close the garage door, I am dead in less than 3 minutes!!! All of you wonderful non smokers better look outside and realize the air pollution is the problem but no one is addressing that. You have all been brain washed by the medical profession. Genetics plays the biggest part in many illnesses, including heart and cancer. Bottom line, we are all going to die, and only God knows how and when. My final thought is I have as much right to smoke as you do to not, I thought that is what made America great choice! Guess we have lost that. For all those that don’t like smoking, go back to where you came from we didn’t ask you to come. Maybe my taxes would be a lot less.
Comment by Mary Manna — December 5, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
So let me see if I have this right, bars will not be able to serve food to customers that have been drinking all night, the drunk customers will then get in their cars and drive home with nothing in their stomaches except booze. Humm good idea, why would we want people that have been drinking all night to eat some food and soak up all that booze and help sobber them up, lets not feed the bar patrons, I want my fellow drivers on the road to be really really drunk and the best way to do that is not feed them.
Besides, I want all those kids that hang out in bars all night long to stay healthy,, cuz as we know, its always about the children.
Anyone remember a casino on the Strip called Silver City ????, Years ago they went ALL Non-Smoking,,, the casino became empty almost overnight and about 6 months later they went back to smoking cuz they lost so much money,, a few months after that they went out of business.
Another point,,, most of the folks that voted for the smoking ban DONT GO TO BARS.
Another point, on the ballot, question 5 listed all the places smoking was going to be banned, Malls, Schools, Resturants ect, and “other places”,,, guess what the “other places” were,,,????
Other places were bars, why did the ballot refur to bars as “other places”.
As a smoker I will NOT go to any bar or eating place that does not allow smoking.
Davyo
Comment by Davyo — December 6, 2006 @ 12:40 am
You can never stop people from doing stupid things. However, no one should ever have the legal right to hurt another person. No other law in the U.S. allows this other than smoking. I’ve never heard any person ever fight for the right to continue using lead-based paint, or any other once legal product that’s been banned due to undeniable proof of it’s harm. Hurting an innocent person with 2nd-hand smoke is a selfish act by smokers, as of Dec. 8th in most places in NV, it will be criminal.
To the argument that smokers have the right to smoke anywhere they want, and if non-smokers don’t like it, they can leave. It is no different than allowing gangs of thugs to shoot guns in public parks, and if you don’t like it, you can leave. After all, you have a choice not to go there. However, what if it’s your job to mow the grass at these parks?
What if you have to drive past a park to get to school or work? The answer is not to take away the guns either, you create laws where shooting them protects everyone as much as possible.
Once a person fully understands
the nature of addictions, most would understand why the people on this great blog say what they do in protest of smoking bans. Most of it is completely irrational, just like the act of smoking itself. Not a human in the world can possibly enjoy the act of burning weeds, mixed with cancer-causing chemicals and inhaling them deeply into their lungs. The chemicals are then distributed through the blood stream to other vital organs all throughout the body. More important to show it’s unbelievable irrationalality, is that this addiction robs people
of their self-respect, respect from others, their health, their money, and often their lives. To top it off, then they act as lobbyists for these very wealthy casino corporations, tobacco companies, and “Big Business/pharmaceuticals”, who profit immensely from their addiction. Smoking is stupid, no one can argue that. Everyone knows it.
How about the argument of letting business owners decide what’s best. If they can decide
whether the chemical make-up of cigarette smoke is acceptable for their customers, then I suppose they should also be able to decide everything and anything else. They’ll be no laws or regulations. We’ll also let business owners decide who is too drunk to drive. It makes no sense. The one product (cigarettes) that is the most deadly and destructive legally
consumable product in the history of our country, is the only product that doesn’t have to list it’s ingredients on the package. It’s crazy I’m telling ya, crazy!
Comment by Bob — December 6, 2006 @ 3:18 am
I am a former smoker of 28 years and understand the insidious addiction of cigarettes. They really do control a persons life in ways a person who has not smoked can never understand. So I sympathize with the incredible need smokers have to continue their habit. However they do not have the right to subject Casino workers like myself to their habit and toxic smoke. We will never be protected by our employers because of the bottom line, our health is never considered over profit. I have always understood this but since I have quit it is a matter of life and death. Poker rooms are thriving and growing every day and the majority of them are smoke free. The Casinos will survive a smoke free enviornment, and I believe a compromise of an enclosed smoking section can be made available to smokers. How many dealers and casino workers have to die before a law that is inevitable and morally correct is put into place.
Comment by 30 year casino worker — December 6, 2006 @ 3:52 am
For you non-smokers praising this and saying you can finally go out to a bar and gamble or have a drink without anyone blowing smoke at you are dead wrong. Many local bars will just drop the food service in those establishments and keep the smoking. Another idea I’ve heard was “eating areas” outdoors and smoking indoors. That’s right, Cali has their smoking areas outside…. well in Las Vegas, NV, there will be designated eating areas outside. The bars don’t want their gamblers to take a smoking break and head outside for a cigarette and second think the gambling they’re doing. Think about it, use your damn heads. You’re either going to eat outside or not at all if this stays a law.
Comment by Justin — December 6, 2006 @ 6:49 am
Quit whining! Your butt-fumes are deadly. Go outside and suck your butts,then come back in and gamble or eat or both!It’s not politics, It’s the health of the majority of Nevadans!Grow up!
Comment by R.Daniels — December 6, 2006 @ 7:11 am
I don’t want to breathe cigarette smoke. If people want to smoke… fine! But I DON’T want to, so do it at home where I don’t HAVE to! Why is it that some people seem to think they have a bigger right to smoke cigarettes than I have to breathe clean air???
Comment by Isabel — December 6, 2006 @ 8:09 am
I DONT SEE THE BIG DEAL. IM FROM CALIFORNIA AND WE HAVE HAD THE LAW FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW. I AM A SMOKER, AND I, ALONG WITH OTHER SMOKERS JUST SMOKE OUTSIDE. I HAVE A DAUGHTER THAT LIVES AND WORKS IN VEGAS AND HAS HAD TROUBLE BREATHING IN THE ESTABLISMENT SHE WORKS IN. GLAD IT PASSED, NO BIG DEAL!!!!!
Comment by PAT SCOTT — December 6, 2006 @ 8:10 am
Well, #1 if its so “dangerous” why is it legal? Smoking is legal get over it.
#2 every restaurant that has a bathroom, is going to get the same wakeup call that they got in NYC.. lol the bathrooms become the defacto “smoking section”.
It wont solve anything, just make more people sneak around as I too plan to do.
Ban it all you want.. if I want to smoke there is always the bathroom.
Besides, it does not ban it in casinos or hotel rooms.. (not that it would stop me from smoking in a hotel room that was “non smoking”)
Sorry anti smokers, I used to follow smoking rules, I tried to be polite, but you decided to throw me into the same bag as some of the “Dirt bag smokers” who blew smoke in your face. Now, its my turn to be a “dirt bag smoker”.. and make it my business to shove it in your face at every turn.
Go back to California if you want smoke free. Nevada will fight this and.. will win in the end.
Comment by Joe — December 6, 2006 @ 8:45 am
Nevada’s Different - In other states, where restaurant smoking bans have been instituted, the restaurant owners had two choices … comply or close. In Nevada their choices are … comply or close the restaurant and keep the gambling open for smokers.
Comment by Dave Bryan — December 6, 2006 @ 9:23 am
Stop it! I am NOT a smoker, but I believe in free enterprise. This is AMERICA. Let the business owner decide for himself to stay in business or not. Leave smokers alone. This WILL change Nevada forever. Don’t do it. Minnesota did, and lots of businesses failed because of non-smoking activists.
Comment by Lois — December 6, 2006 @ 10:00 am
It is about time!!!
Comment by Wendy — December 6, 2006 @ 10:06 am
To all the smokers who are complaining about the recent smoking ban and to all of the Nevada businesses who are threatening to file a lawsuit regarding the new law hear this: All of us non-smokers who like to enjoy breathing should all get together and file a Class Action Lawsuit against all the cigarette companies and name all of you smokers who willingly blow smoke into the faces of other innocent human beings, knowing all along that smoking is a known carcinogen. We have most of you on camera anyway! You are all committing more harm than those of us who want to do something about YOUR ADDICTION!
Comment by D. Cordero — December 6, 2006 @ 10:22 am
First of all, I want to say that I think that there are too many bars and taverns in this city (Las Vegas) contributing to people’s deadly habits (drunk driving, smoking, etc.)! The passing of Question 5 is not telling these businesses to stop serving food! It is simply stating that if food will be served, no smoking allowed. The customers can go outside and have a smoke if they want. An average person that may want to stop by and just have a drink (not necessarily leading to drunkenness)or a meal cannot even enjoy a drink or meal without the smoking blowing in their direction, sometimes even at their face! The other day, I had an emergency with my vehicle and I had to go inside a tavern to use a pay phone. I couldn’t stand the stench and odor of the cigarette smoke! I thought to myself, how can the employees and the smokers breathe! It smelled so horrific in there, and I actualy felt sick when I stepped back outside! Thank God I’m not a smoker!
Comment by Suzanne — December 6, 2006 @ 10:35 am
Mahalo All Who Voted #5 Smoking is a choice so take that choice and enjoy it where it doesn’t infringe on the air space of others,for we have rights as well.Enjoy your cigarrett in your own space.
Comment by Shirl Lewis — December 6, 2006 @ 10:37 am
I think this smoking ban is going to put a lot of small business out of business, they just are not going to make it with one or the other (eat or drink) and for the people of Las Vegas I feel sorry for them. I myself like a smoke after a good meal and now it is eat and get out. Looks like no more eating out. The people of Las Vegas did not vote for this band the state did us a number so good luck to the small business if you can keep going. I hope that the law suit files be looked into real good and just maybe we can smoke where we want too.
Comment by Robert G — December 6, 2006 @ 10:51 am
So what are we the people protecting? The food or the workers. What about all the other workers that don’t serve food? As a Bartender the law is going to kill my tips. And now I’ll have to leave my bar and go out in the cold to smoke and feel like an outcast. Smaller taverns that sell food are going to close their kitchens rather than tell their customers thay can’t relax, play the slots and have a smoke. People are going to lose jobs and income. Either ban ciggerettes or ban these stupid laws that don’t make sence. It should be left to the establishment. The way it’s always been in Veags (I feel) works best…. “Smoking or non-smoking?”
Comment by Lew W — December 6, 2006 @ 11:33 am
Nevadans are in far greater danger from second state smoke from California fires than these Californians will ever be from my second hand smoke.
If anyone thinks that now there will be more non smoking places to eat. You are sadly mistaken. There will simply be longer lines at the places that are already non smoking, as they will be the only places to eat. And thats a FACT.
Comment by Ken Brown — December 6, 2006 @ 11:50 am
And in response to all of the people whining that business will suffer, look at the facts. Everywhere else that smoking restrictions have been implemented, business has improved. There is a short term hit as businesses adjust to new rules, and then everyone starts to benefit. Well, except for tobacco companies, but that’s an acceptable loss.
Comment by R.Daniels — December 6, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
This whole thing stinks!!! It isn’t even abut smoking anymore. It is about control from the state and gaming industry. Do you see children and food along with smokers in the casinos? Of course you do - they are out side of movie theatres in casinos, by the food courts in the casinos and of course casino owners will tell you different but they are also on the casino floors. This isn’t about children its about revenues taken away from small business owners, minimum wage workers in kitchens loosing their jobs because the tavern owners will opt to keep smoking and do away with their kitchens.(Not to mention the drunks on our roads because they couldn’t get a bite to eat while drinking).
What ever happened to the freedoms which our great country used to stand for. Where each and every individual had a choice in how they lived their lives, including how they can run their business. I AM DAMN MAD AND SO ARE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE!!
PS: What does banning smoking at the airport have to do with children and food, there are neither of those two elements in the smoking areas. It’s all just big brother trying to control.
Comment by Deborah Bousquet — December 6, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
I feel horrible for voting for yes on question 5. I believe it was unclear on how strict it really is. I would prefer a smoke free Las Vegas, but as long as there are smokers this will never be. I feel terrible for the cooks that will be laid off due to this policy. I also feel tricked because now I get to go to a smokey bar and not be able to get food. I thought the law protected everyone that had gambling, not just the casinos.
Comment by Angela — December 6, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
I smoked for over 30 years and quit about 15 years ago now. I never had a problem with people smoking in public places until I moved to Nevada.
It seems the folks who smoke here have absolutly NO CONSIDERATION for non-smokers. I love to gamble and love to go to bars, but truely do not appreciate it one bit when a smoker deliberatly blows their smoke in my face.
I was at Terribles Lakeside Casino in Pahrump NV and had a couple of incidents with smokers, one was I asked a smoker if he could move his ashtray to the other side. He hollered at me and called security and said I was wrong because this WAS A SMOKING FACILITY the security guard told me that if it bothered me maybe I should move, which I did because this smoker was then getting even more annoying and making it a point to blow his smoke in my face.
The second time I had a smoker sit next to me once again blowing his smoke in my face, I said absolutely nothing but waved my hand in front of MY FACE as he was blowing his smoke right at me, he also found it necessary to call security on me and told them “I WAS EMBARRASSING HIM” by waving my hand in front of my own face to get his smoke out of my face. Once again I was chastised by security and then the manager,and told “THIS IS A SMOKING FACILITY” I was very angry that nothing was said to either smoker like maybe you could be a little polit with your smoke. NO NOTHING WAS SAID TO THEM, in other words smokers can be as rude and nasty as they want and non-smokers have to put up with it.
Another time I was at a bar and a smoker sitting next to me put his ashtray of course right under my nose so that his smoke would go in my face and when I finally had enough and moved he said ” HA HA MADE YOU MOVE” With this attitude from smokers constantly I believe this new law is the right thing to do, as smokers think only they have rights and no one else.
I don’t believe for one minute that bars that also have food and restaurants can’t do something that would not be so costly to keep both the bars and restaurants happy and keep their business going strong. They probably will pick up more customers because non-smokers would also feel welcome and spend more time in their establishments as well.
I think that the entire ADULT population making such a hugh fuss over to smoke or not are being entirely childish and should spend their energy trying to make it work of all of us instead of only one group or the other.
The people have spoken on question 5 and no where did I see any statistics that only NON-SMOKERS voted yes to the question. It may suprise you to know possibly how many smokers voted yes to the question.
Not every smoker wants to smell like an ashtray where ever they go either. Some actually have manners and care about other people not just their bad habit and their right to enfringe it on everyone.
Grow up and lets all try to work together as a community instead of continuing to try to make someone else responsible for short comings or bad habits of others no matter what the situation may be.
Smokers and people having to talk on their cell phones while driving are just as bad as someone who has been drinking, they all are an accident looking for a place to happen as they do not have complete control of the vehicle if they are doing other things besides driving so don’t even go with drunks will not get anything to eat before “driving home” as food does not make a drunk sober.
So lets put this animousity to rest and work to make it work for everyone. Las Vegas and the entire state of Nevada are always in the public eye. It is not good for any business to see constant fighting amoung the community.
By the way, I would not even mind smoke so much if they would BAN cigars and pipes in casinos and other public places. They really stink worse then any cigarette and the cigarettes today unlike years ago smell worse. Whatever they use to make cigarettes today is certainly not good for you.
But to smoke is the persons choice, where to smoke is the peoples choice.
Comment by Bonnie — December 6, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
Hopefully all the people that voted yes on question 5 go to the bar on friday night.
Comment by fred — December 6, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Smoking has cost me a ton of money after giving up a career as a bowler about 10 yrs ago because I couldn’t take the 2nd-hand smoke anymore. All I ever heard was that it was legal, and until it’s banned, bowlers were allowed to smoke.
I still coach bowling, but only in limited settings, where smoke is at a minimum. Because I don’t allow students to smoke, most smokers do not come to me for lessons. I realized a few years after quitting bowling, that I was going to do something to help change smoking laws, attitudes, and to help the 83% of smokers who want to beat their nicotine addiction. I’ve now spent many thousands of dollars of my own money, given up a career I was successful at, and now that “We the People” have spoken, all we hear is how unfair it is. It’s very troubling to say the least. Apparently democracy and the Constitution may not mean that much if enough money is involved.
Big Tobacco and Big Business have always been very successful at pitting the smokers against the non-smokers. It’s truely ingenious, but unlimited amounts of money can accomplish most anything. Including the fact that some smokers believe their right to smoke and harm others, has a higher priority than a persons’ right to protect themselves or their family from physical harm. Everyone has the right to protect themselves. I would ask a smoker this….if someone was blowing smoke into the face of your child or baby, what would you do? We all know the answer, because everyone knows the dangers of 2nd-hand smoke. It’s been proved beyond any doubt. I’m always amazed at the majority of die-hard smokers who are ordinarily responsible, seemingly intelligent, hard-working, etc., and will argue their right to smoke in public. Many will even smoke in front of their own kids, and yet, they are the same people who wouldn’t ordinarily step on an ant.
This law does not in any way tell a smoker they can’t smoke, just not at someone elses expense, unless they’re in an adult-only strip club or a large casino (where life is less valuable).
Most people believe the Smoke Free Coalition (creators of question 4), created the question to confuse voters about the two smoking initiatives. Had question 4 passed, it would have allowed smoking laws to be more lenient than current law. How ironic would it be, to someday possibly see the Smoke Free Coalition actually fighting to ban smoking in the remainder of the establishments where smoking is allowed? Karma is a wonderful thing.
Let’s go bowling….after Friday that is.
Comment by Bob Duffy — December 6, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
I for one am a smoker and I am a considerate one as well. I don’t light a cigarette around children, I DO NOT blow my smoke in other people’s faces, I try to blow the smoke away from the person I am talking to. I work for several bar/restaurants and the majority of the patrons said “If you keep the food, we will go elsewhere to gamble.” Tell me how that’s not saying bars/restaurants will suffer.. Go into a random bar one night and see how many smoking gamblers there are versus nonsmoking gamblers.
Comment by Pixienvegas — December 6, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
It is politicaly incorrect to bash an African American, Hispanic American, or a homosexual. However If you smoke you are open game. Just read some of the thoughts here. I have never felt so hated as an American smoker. The arrogance to think that ones hatred is ok, is sad, at best.
Comment by Ken — December 6, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
If the tavern owners make all their money from gamblers that smoke all they have to do is close their kitchen.
They are lucky they have a choice.
Quit crying tavern owners. You’re making a nice living and will keep doing so after the ban starts on Dec. 8th.
Comment by John M. — December 6, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
Once upon a time, it was unhealthy for African-Americans to sit in the front of a public bus. It was quoted then that it was not only a social “no-no”, but for health reasons to be so close to “those” people. Instead we rose to the challenge and learned social tolerance. We learned to share the space. Rather than imposing on one another an absolute, we should attempt to find ways that BOTH can share this city equally. I have read the pros and cons posted here. I can understand non-smokers feel they are being denied clean air. Yet, I don’t see a lot of people giving up on gas guzzling SUVs that contribute to the haze you see hanging over the city. I have yet to hear a news broadcast telling the citizens to stay indoors due to increased cigerette and/or cigar smokers. Only certain people gave up on these polluting vehicles when they could not afford the fuel for them. What I can’t understand is why do our laws have to deal with absolutes. Smoking has been legal for adults in this country since before we were an independent nation. Non-smokers want the smokers to quit, but I have yet to see any law created to bring down the cost of products to help them to quit. $65 - $100+ to quit smoking. Perhaps, it is cheaper if you have the right insurance. So, try to figure out way to make quitting easy for even a homeless person with no insurance, instead we deal with absolutes and “ME” attitudes. So if non-smokers want to save this city and its people, do something about the over development. One day you might have a smokeless city, but not a drop of water to drink. We have built this beautiful arid area up to the point you can’t see the mountains anymore. We are allowing our historic sites to be destroyed, but the most important thing on a lot of people’s mind is the secondhand they may be exposed to during the 30 seconds it takes to walk by the gambling area in a grocery store. If you don’t like the smell of cigarettes, what about the gases that you are breathing that you nose can’t detect. Think of the possibility that many nevadans may lose their jobs to keep smoking in bars. It was said that they researched other states that voted for this type of law. Do they other states involved have gaming at the bar like we do? Will there be an increase of non-smoking patrons to cover the loss of smoking patrons? These businesses were doing well when the spaced was shared, now either or could be fatal.
Comment by Wayne — December 6, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
The more you allow the State or Federal Governments control over business such as smoking or no smoking, the more rules will come. While non-smokers might be happy now, the affected persons of the next law will be mad. Every inch or yes to a new rule WILL bring more. Give power now to the State powers, and we will all lose more freedoms later. Banning all persons under 21 in Bars, Casinos and places there is alcohol, smoking or gaming would be the best choice. If you want to protect kids, send them to Disneyland. If you want a town that is community, move. This is a fun adult city and it’s losing it’s appeal and maybe tourists. That will cost many jobs and we all will pay for the unemployed if the ban stays. I respect both sides of no smoking or smoking, but I feel that the law will hurt businesses. Why should they have to comply with foolish laws like this. Force people to be responsible for their children and keep them out of adult areas such as bars and casinos. I kept my kids out of there without laws making me. I had the sense to do that and didn’t need the state to impose rules on business because people with kids are too dumb to do the right thing. If you need to vote on a rule like this, then we have too many dumb parents with kids under 21 risking their children. Many businesses already have no smoking in place without the law. I choose them to be in a smoke free place, just like my home is smoke free. No law needed. Child care places and schools can pass laws for those buildings and rightfully so. Give business a break. I don’t want to fund the unemployed because voters made the mistake.
Comment by Dawn — December 6, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
Thank you Kalifornians! My home of 43 years is being choked out by migrant tourists who don’t smoke. Smoking is legal and now a bunch of people with the sniffles move to Las Vegas and use cigarettes as the new excuse. Atleast the smoke from a cigarette is contained to a bar or casino! Take a look at the cloud that hangs over LA, I’d move too. If you want clean air, move to the mountains just leave this city alone. When people lose jobs and small businesses close down we can thank the non-smokers for taking something legal and making it illegal. Now the selfish hybrid driving parents who voted for this will focus on finding something else to complain about. The buffets will be next, you see some of the people that go there, its bad for there health and the health of there children to be exposed to such risk. Things like Cholesterol and trans fat will ruin lives. Point is “if the smoke bothers you just politely move”…Anybody remember how long the 1st non-smoking casino (the Silver City)lasted?
Comment by Rick the smoker/voter — December 6, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
LAST I CHECKED WE ARE A REPUPLIC. WE THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA HAVE VOTED !! THE DECISION ON A INDOOR CLEAN AIR ACT, QUESTION 5 HAS PASSED.. IF THE BARS AND RESTAURANTS DONT LIKE IT THEN PACK-UP AND LEAVE….
Comment by John Holliday — December 6, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
I am pleased that a non-smoking law has not been passed. It’s about time, we have fresher air inside casinos and taverns. If Californians and New Yorkers were disciplined and smoke outside (even when it snows), Nevadans can too. Some people still want to live cancer free.
Comment by Guevara, MD — December 6, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
Having come from a midwest state that passed non-smoking laws I can tell you that the bar owners there had the same complaints that Nevada bar owners have. However, after the smokers started staying home and the bars got cleaned up they were busier and more profitable than ever after the non-smokers quit staying home and started going out. Imagine, those who don’t waste their money on cigarettes started spending it in bars and bar profits went up. Who cares if 20 smokers quit going to a local bar if the 50 non-smokers that stayed away because of the smoke start going. Get real people, non-smokers have just as much right to breath smoke free air as does anyone else. If you could keep your smoke just to yourself this would not be an issue. The problem is when you light a cigarette everyone in the area can smell the stench no matter where they are sitting.
Comment by Mark — December 6, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
The smoking ban isnt going to hurt any business it has in the other 4 states why would it here. People still have to eat and this is the best way for people with asthma to be able to go to placaes like Timbers and other good bar and grills that have good food. My wife has asthma real bad and we cant do any of that right now its working great in Calif. and no business has hurt at all same with New Jersey. PEOPLE just need to quit crying so much we still have to eat you people that smoke can go outside so the biggest majority that dont smoke can enjoy good meals. I thin this is the best thing that ever could happen in Las Vegas thank GOD that people finally got smart enought to vote the right way so we all have the right to anywhere, you smokers need to quit crying smoke in your cars or home leave smoking at home so people can enjoy there foor and not have to worry bout dieing because of all the 2nd hand smoke. Not good for you at all.
Judge to whom you ever are please vote the correct and keep it the way should be like how the people voted to happen. The same voters to help get his bill to pass also voted for you and it might hurt your future in the futre of ever wining another election. So please do the right thing and make it happen so people can start feeling better instead of always being sick
Comment by Brad — December 6, 2006 @ 11:21 pm
20% of the population smoke. It’s time for them to go back to the alleys and smoke with the crack addicts lighting up.
Smoking is stupid. They know it too, it’s the weak ones who are spineless in their attempts to stop, that squeel.
I love beer, and am sick of going home after a pint of Guinness smelling like an ashtray. I wish i could fart right on the nose of a smoker and let him feel how I feel.
Let those small establishments go under. Demolish those buildings and build a gym on it. Hire the laid off workers. There are plenty of non-smokers who enjoy slots and good food at a steiners. Or shooting pool with friends and drinking guinness at a Pts….
Shut up smokers and go away. You’re done. Go fall aslep in bed with your lit cig and light yourself on fire, sick of smelling you all and am now sick of hearing about you.
Comment by Kevin K — December 6, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
I am so glad this law passed the bar owners are just worried about the bottom line MONEY not your health so most of there money comes from smokers so just don’t serve food thats all.I like to play video poker now I don’t have to look over my shoulder anymore for a rude smoker blowing or just holding that cancer stick right in my direction also maybe some of these smokers will quit now and notice a big difference in there health like I can live without smoking I work in the Casino business I am praying for that day NO smoking in Casinos its the new way of life now more people are into health and most people are sick & tired of smokers I know I am so blow your smoke somewhere else.
Comment by Bruce — December 6, 2006 @ 11:24 pm
I believe the vote itself was worded so bad, that it was confusing, because if people meant to ban smoking all together, they would have voted no on #4 also, it was confusing to many people. But truthfully, each and every business in every town, city, state & the whole country has the power and choice to make his or her business smoke free, if they choose too! We don’t need to set rules/laws, it is each business’s choice, or did we loose the freedom of choice somewhere along the way? Sure lets protect the childern, no smoking in schools, daycares, librarys, sports events, ect… But kids don’t belong in bars & taverns! I know of quite a few bars that will give up the food, not the smoking, so we will have more people leaving bars with a higher blood alcohol level, because they were not allowed to eat while there! Is this smart? NO, and it’s a very scary thought!
Stop making rules that are unbenificial in the long run, let each business deside what they want to do, don’t make them pick smoking or food.
Comment by Patricia A Schwartz — December 6, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
First thing I am thankful I won’t have some idiot blowing smoke my way while I eat.Second thing is you idiots don’t get it…it’s not the Government that voted to ban..the people did…the Government wants you to smoke and drink all you want..it’s more money for them..if they cared for you it would never have been legal.People are worried over job lose…there are plenty of jobs out there and to think that some people think dying and killing is better than having to look for a job?Well that’s sad..all I can say is “GET A GUN AND KILL YOURSELF IF YOU WANT TO..I WON’T DIE CLEANING UP YOUR MESS AND YOU CAN GET IT OVER WITH FASTER”
Comment by Tony — December 6, 2006 @ 11:37 pm
As I see it, They are willing to trade your health for few dollars.
Comment by Pat Heinrich — December 6, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
As A Mormon and the wife of a man who works in a bar as a cook, I have conflicting alliances. I voted for question #4 and against #5 because of the wording in the questions. Question 5 will serve to put my husband and many others out of a job just before Christmas. We have had no warning other than a month between the election and the ratification.Question #4 would have left things much the way they were. Why is it necessary to legislate parental surervision? My kids don’t patronize bars, even when there is food. I won’t let them. They don’t go into casinos. There are non-smoking drugstores, grocery stores, etc. that an adamant consumer can patronize. It shouldn’t be an all or nothing proposition. Let those of them that want to smoke, smoke. The rest of us should be adult enough to realize that you don’t go into places that put us or our kids in jeopardy.
Comment by debbi cooper — December 6, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
Another “Big Brother” law is all we need. Just like probition in the 20s when drinking was banned the only thing it did was give birth to organized crime. I suppose we will have smokeasies instead of speakeasies.(knock 3 times tell them Joe sent you) This whole thing is a batch of male bovine manure.
Comment by Tom — December 7, 2006 @ 12:06 am
Silly. Every smoker knows there is no arguement for smoking. I just shake my head and grin when I read this stuff….and I smoked for 25 years.
Comment by Robert Ellis — December 7, 2006 @ 5:08 am
The majority of the voters have spoken. These smokers need to just deal with it. California restaurants and bars have not been affected by their smoking ban, and neither would Nevada. Arizona also recently passed a smoking ban. Obviously most people want to be in a healthy environment. It’s ridiculous that some are trying to delay the ban. Voters passed the act, so what’s the problem? Smokers can still inhale their toxic smoke in casinos.
Comment by Kelly Shad — December 7, 2006 @ 6:07 am
I don’t see anyone on here saying how much the SMOKERS settlement money has helped the State of Nevada. All I see is a bunch of people whining about how they have to breathe second hand smoke, how it smells, blah blah blah. I for one would rather sit in a smoke filled room without windows or an air filtration system than listen to the screaming monsters that seem to control their parents in every restaurant I go into.
Comment by racer x — December 7, 2006 @ 6:09 am
I can tell you this, Gaming inside of supermarkets, and local gas stations are going to plummet.
No smoking = no business.
The citizens didn’t “speak” Clark county spoke. THEY pushed this ban on everyone.
I can see bad bad news over this ban, people getting booted from jobs, people making less money.. just wait.
Besides, all that will happen is smoking will just hide in the bathroom stalls like it has in EVERY other place that smoking has been banned.
Unless they want to put cameras into bathrooms, they cant stop people from smoking there. Wait, I don’t want to give them any ideas..
Thank you Kalifornians is right.. this ban was financed by the anti tobacco kings of Kalifornistan.
Comment by Mike Anderson — December 7, 2006 @ 8:44 am
The locust from California have noticed over the last several years that they have depleated their resources and destroyed their state. Now Nevada and Arizona will be overtaken by those that consume and leave. Passing anti-smoking laws are just a beginning. UTAH BEWARE!
Comment by Ken Brown — December 7, 2006 @ 8:47 am
I feel that we smokers will abide by the law as with any law. And for those poor ignorant souls that keep referring to smokers as “dirt bags and arrogant”, you should be ashamed. This is a forum to simply voice a decent reaction to the passing of this bill. For all I know you (whoever you are) may be an alchoholic that drinks that nasty smelling garbage and drives or maybe a drug addict that has been hiding it from friends and family for years..whatever the case…we are not dirt bags. Simply people with a choice that they make in life that may not be the best but a choice never the less. I am a very considerate smoker and I don’t and never have cared for the arrogance of the non-smoker or the former smokers attitude. But that is your choice. I feel good that I don’t have that kind of malice inside of me and that I can find the humor in you. Have a very Merry Christmas and New Year that will hopefully be prosperous to you and yours.
Comment by Denise — December 7, 2006 @ 9:25 am
I am a smoker. I understand the people who want smoke free environments, when I quit smoking I couldn’t stand to be around cigarettes either. I chose to smoke, I chose the establishments I patronize, I have never refused to go to a business that allows smoking or doesn’t allow smoking. I see the smoking ban as bad for business because the restaurants and bars will have to close their restaurants to comply, thereby causing loss of income and jobs. The casinos will get more business because the smokers want to play and smoke. This will hurt the bars and restaurants further. It seems the large corporations again win over the mom and pop businesses and I don’t see where that benefits ANYONE. I’ve been in casinos, smoking and playing, and have had a non-smoker sit next to me and complain about my smoking…hey, I was there first! I don’t go out of my way to blow smoke in their direction but I also don’t stop smoking for their convenience. Last time I checked no one was ever charged with Driving under the influence of cigarettes. What’s next? Stop the free alcohol for the gamblers? At least that makes sense since drinking and driving is illegal. Can’t we all just get along?
Comment by Smokers are people too — December 7, 2006 @ 9:50 am
For all you readers out there, have you noticed that the majority of people who smoke can’t “spell” accurately? They need to “read” more about the dangers of being a smoker, and about the serious health effects of secondhand smoke! Get an education!
Comment by Susan — December 7, 2006 @ 10:33 am
WHAT’S NEXT, TAKING CHILDREN OUT OF HOMES WHERE THEIR PARENTS SMOKE?
Comment by Old Time Vegan — December 7, 2006 @ 11:08 am
Last I checked, the judged ordered a 15 day stay on the law saying something to the effect that some southern Nevadan businessmen could persuade him the law was unconstitutional.
Comment by Carol — December 7, 2006 @ 11:37 am
If I’m not mistaken, people “vote” with their wallets in a free-market economy. If the majority of customers of bars and taverns wanted a smoke-free environment, the bars would be smoke-free in order to appease their primary customers. The fact that the local bar and tavern industry has continued to explode over the decades speaks volumes about the preference of these patrons.
Comment by Neil Mayfield — December 7, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Owners don’t get it or probably don’t care. Smoking kills, whether first or second hand. Why must the majority accept this life threatening act. Smoking is an indivdual decision and should not be force upon those who seek a more healthty lifestyle. Some smokers say that they like to enjoy a smoke after a meal. I say, “I like to enjoy my meal without your smoke”. Laws are not always fair, but they must be obeyed. Thank God for this law that may give me a few more years of life.
Comment by Jay johnson — December 7, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
only 22% of all gamblers are smokers. It will not hurt a companys income in anyway. It will just allow non-smokers (88%) the freedom to enjoy their food and gambling in taverns as well.
Comment by jk — December 7, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
The business should allow or disallow smoking as they see fit for their business. If you don’t like going to a place that allows smoking in their establishment then DON’T GO. When we visit the resturaunt/bar/grocery ect we are guests to their establishment and should respect their rules being it not smoking or smoking allowed.
Comment by Rick — December 7, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
If the ban does eventually go into effect, it will not be good for the Las Vegas economy. I won’t bother going to Vegas any longer. It’s bad for the small business owners, and it’s bad for the perception of Vegas as being an ‘anything-goes’ kind of town. What I can’t understand is why Vegas ever appealed in the first place to the voters who voted for the ban. Did you move to Vegas just to try and change it?
Comment by Drew — December 7, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
The problem is that most of the voting public did not understand the question put before them. I am positive that if more Las Vegans had known that passage of question 5 would put 100,000 people out of work, they would have voted “no”. Smokers have been put in the position of separate but equal for years, we adjust, we will continue to adjust. Our economy relys on local taverns and bar & grills for income for our residents, sales of groceries, and sales of prepared meals as well as gaming. This is an economic issue and it is real. To the non-smoker, I am sorry but this is an imperfect world - adjust as the smokers have.
Comment by Karen — December 7, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
I call bull$@#!. I don’t believe for a minute businesses will suffer! The addictive personalities that smoke are NOT going to stop patronizing a bar and playing those gaming devices - they’ll be there. And in turn what WILL ALSO happen is those of us NON-SMOKERS that can’t sit at a bar and have fun due to the overwhelming suffocation of SMOKING WITHOUT A FILTER, will be there. We’ll be spending our disposable income dollars on food, drinks, gambling and tipping. I have made a personal commitment to spend signficantly more money supporting the businesses in my neighborhood that support this smoking ban. It’s time for Nevada to grow-up a little (that’s right, “just a little” is all we ask). The ruling today is another example of how our city is controlled by the influence of special interests, and NOT the general public.
Comment by Michele Hyden — December 7, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
As a former California Resident, I remember well the barrage of distainful comments slung at smokers during the vote to ban smoking in bars and restaurants there. As a current Nevada resident, I am not surprised at hearing and reading the same comments.
As a Smoker, I have always tried to be as courteous to those around me as possible. I will wait extended lengths of time to have a smoke when around non-smokers, I refuse to litter and will keep the butts in my pocket until a trash can or ashtray can be found and I avoid smoking around children as much as possible.
Many of the comments I have read and heard bash all smokers as some sort of hideous, dregs of society type group that is out to purposely end the lives of everyone who is not a member of this society. This idea, of course couldn’t be further from the truth. Many of us are simply hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who at one point in their lives made a choice that would turn out to be one of the hardest ever to overcome. For me, it was a choice as a teenager that has haunted a lifetime.
One last note: for those who think that secondhand smoke is the only way non-smokers get lung cancer, a study released in 2002 in the Journal of the AMA, stated “But breathing very polluted air long-term can raise the risk of lung cancer as much as breathing second-hand smoke, he added.The largest effect of bad air on deaths from heart disease and lung cancer was on non-smokers. And, bad air increased all study participants’ chance of death by the same amount as if they were all “moderately” overweight, the report noted”
Something maybe we should all think about.
Comment by Nicol — December 7, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
Okay, here is the deal. No one under the age of 21 is allowed in a bar, so we are not polluting our children! If you don’t like smoking, don’t go in the bar! There are plenty of restaurants that are completly non-smoking and have been for years. Go there and eat! A bar/tavern is a bar/tavern. If you don’t like smoke, stay out!!!!! I think the rule should be that every bar/tavern owner should post a sign that states “We allow smoking”. That way you complaining non-smokers will know what you are up against before you even open the door and pollute your lungs. This a free country and we should ALL have the option of a choice.
Comment by Barb — December 7, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
This is more than just about smoking or non-smoking. It is about fairness in business. One segment of the gaming industry is “exempt” from this law, while another is not. As any business owner would say, regardless of industry, why should a competing business in a similar industry have an unfair advantage in the community. It’s ok to go to a casino and smoke and eat, but not up the street? Are all the “open” restaurants adjacent to the gaming area in hotels/casinos going to have walls installed? Of course not. It is not a level playing field, and the infancy of a monopoly. Also, those who smoke and drink in their neighborhood establishment, will not have food available, which may only increase the number of “impaired” drivers within the community. It is not just a smoking/non-smoking issue, there are many other underlying factors which can ripple through the community, both business and residential.
Comment by Ron — December 7, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
The people have spoken and I believe Judge Herndon was paid off.
I don’t think smoking should be banned in bars and taverns however there is no way around it. If bars were exempt then it would leave a loophole in the law.
The right to breathe clean air is more important than the right to smoke.
Comment by J — December 7, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
This is stupid. The measure was voted on and passed by a state wide ballot. Who the hell does this judge think he is to overrule the will of the people. Must be another one of the Bush fans who think that if you lose it is OK to just have a court give you what you wanted anyway. I will never spend another penny at any terrible locations anywhere. Everyone should boycott any business associated with this restraining order. Maybe if we can drive these assholes out of business we could get some business owners who can respect and obey the law. I am so pissed I don’t even know how to convey everything that I am feeling. Maybe it is time to move the civil war from Iraq to America. We had to have a civil war in the past to bring our country back in line and I think we are just about there again.
Pissed off in Nevada.
Comment by mark — December 7, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Well, I happen to disagree with the judges granting of a TRO here in clark county (amazing, the rest of the state will be smoke free starting tomorrow, but ole clark county won’t be).
I guess smokers are so addicted to their habit that they can’t control themselves for 1-2 hours in a bar area without lighting up (seems the stuff is more addictive than crack cocaine).
If the courts strike down this law (and smoking bans have been upheld overwhelmingly in other parts of the country), I would suggest the voters remove Judge Herndon and the Supreme Court members who want to go against the voters of Nevada who did approve it (the government is the people folks, not the judges or politicians).
Comment by Bill — December 7, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
I agree with Michele and Nicole, the two comments before mine. I try very hard to not offend the non smokers, (and after reading some of the comments from non smokers in here, I am sorry I tried to not offend them). I have never read more obnoxious comments then on this site from the non smokers.
SO NO I DO NOT WANT TO OFFEND THE NON SMOKERS, however, as has been stated in previous comments, all restaurants have gone non smoking, so more power to you. Yes, we smokers, have chosen to smoke, which is our right, would like to have a place that we can go and not be offended by a non smoker, yes that is what I said, I have been offended by non smokers.
So leave the taverns/bar/grills alone, let us have someplace that we can go to enjoy ourselves. If you work there and don’t like it, there are plenty of places that you can get a job. I have a job that I can’t smoke at, which is fine, if I didn’t like it or the money I make I would find another job, that is my decision.
Besides the jobs that will be lost and the businesses that will go under, just remember the taxes that are being put on the cigarettes. The smokers in the state are paying for a lot of improvements that are happening in this state.
I for one will start buying my cigarettes on line OUT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA.
Comment by Linda — December 7, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
if Nevada can have prostitution legal in other counties but not Clark…. since a majority of Clark County numbers were a NO on #5, why can’t Clark county be smoking and the rest of the state that voted for #5 non-smoking ?
__”For all you readers out there, have you noticed that the majority of people who smoke can’t “spell” accurately? They need to “read” more about the dangers of being a smoker, and about the serious health effects of secondhand smoke! Get an education!”__
hey “Susan”, how old are you? You going to make fun of me next because I wear glasses?
See folks, this is what it’s come to, childish remarks like the one I quoted.
You want clean air but fail to ride a bike everywhere you go? Hypocrytes…. hey Susan, I spell that right?
Comment by justin — December 7, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
I am a 30 year old Native of Las Vegas. I remember the days when smoking was allowed in grocery stores. We celebrated the day when that was outlawed. The problem is that we still are forced to pass by smoky casino areas where smoking is still legal. That is until Question 5 takes it’s rightful place in law. I do feel, however that bars and taverns should have been left out of it. Unfortunately, we, as voters didn’t have a middle ground on the issue. Question 4 would have actually been a step back for anti-smoking regulations in several ways, whereas Question 5 is quite broad in it’s scope. As a father of a small child who has no vote, I felt compelled to protect her as best as possible. I understand the position of the bar and tavern owners and agree to a point. However, the health of my family takes priorty over the prosperity of those establishments.
Comment by Steve — December 7, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
I will not go to any bar or restuarant that hired these lawyers.
Comment by Bob — December 7, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
This is the age of idiocy. I guess we will be outlawing common sense. The voter does not have the right to ban anything at all. Where are the people who review these laws for constitutionality before they go on ballots. This nation is no longer a democracy. Say goodbye to liberty and hello to the tyranny of mindless, oversized government. I used to love America. I don’t know if I can if people are so stupid that they actually vote away their freedoms. Why have a constitution? This is really bad when we screw our economy over a cigarette. What a hell mongering thing this health crap is becoming. We used to test atomic bombs in this state for crying out loud. Now we are worried about cigarettes in bars?! Go eat somewhere else if you don’t like cigarettes in a food and gaming establishment. We are just helping non-Las Vegas gaming in their battle for customers. Use mechanical filtering machines in the businesses, not stupid laws to deal with second hand smoke.
Comment by Michael — December 7, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Looks like that idiot judge Herndon is in the pockets of the powerful casino industry. Did you really think that this would go any other way? Makes you wonder why most people don’t vote.
Comment by David — December 7, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
How dare this judge over ride the will of the people!We voted on this issue and the people have spoken. No wonder why people dont vote. If what the people want in this state is denied why then vote? Outrageous!Communism here we come…..no more the land of the free or free will!!!Watch out I smell casinos in this dirty picture!
Comment by susan tyler — December 7, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
54% of the voters approved Question 5. 991,054 voters are registered. 283,598 of them actually voted. SO, when we’re talking about the majority of voters passed Question 5, we’re talking about 11,343 voters who tipped the scale. I call that a very slim majority. These stats came from http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/2006StateWideGeneral/VoterTurnout.htm
Comment by Jim Cutlar — December 7, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
If question 5 is so unconstitional then why did it go in effect for the rest of Nevada ? The bottom line is that the Indoor smoking clean air act is not unconstitutional. Its because of one of Nevada’s weak liberal judges ( Herndin ) getting in the way of Nevada voters…
Comment by Jalvin — December 7, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
WOW! Do you people not get it. This is not California, or any other state. Las Vegas doesn’t only have some of the greatest bars, they compete for the best food in their neck of the woods. This in turn draws more gamers to their bar. (Here’s a concept for those of you that think Las Vegas is exactly like California) What does your favorite bar in Santa Cruz serve at 4:00am in the morning? Can you wake up in California at any hour of the night and get a full meal deal? I have been there during those hours. Me, 1 cook, 1 waitress,and a bartender, nobody else. My bill: $2.75 for three hours.
(Still can’t do the math?)
The people of Las Vegas work shifts that are probably not anything you are use to. These bars and taverns are kind enough to keep their doors open to people like us. They not only take a loss of revenue to feed us that don’t gamble, they do it with pride. If this smoking law goes into effect, thousands of us can live off of fast food trans fat. Hey, it only causes cancer in California.
Comment by Ken — December 7, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
As a tavern owner and non smoker,It is important to point out a few issues here. This is not a smoking ban like other states because it has exemptions such as the casino floors. When you tell people that second hand smoke is dangerous ,then it is for everbody.Period. Then all smokers go outside or wherever and smoke and thats it. We are now all on a level playing field and there is no unfair competition matters. When you say it is ok for some businesses and not others,you now have your lawsuit. Taverns are over 21 like casinos.Taverns have gaming licenses like casinos. We pay our taxes like casinos. We should then have the same law as casinos. Either ban smoking everywhere or leave it alone.
Comment by bob — December 7, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
JK’s comment that only 22% of gamblers are smokers could not be more wrong. In fact, slightly more than 80% of gamblers are smokers - based on a study done here in Las Vegas. Not certain where JK got those numbers - Just trying to keep the record straight.
Comment by Gina — December 7, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
Concerning the recent complaint filed, I for one will no longer, buy any gas at any of the Terrible Herbst owned gas stations, nor will any of my family even if I have to drive a little further to another station. These people only have one interest at heart and it’s their wallets. I have waited for a very long time for this ban on smoking and feel that the owners of these businesses need to just wait it out. If there atmosphere was so friendly and had “loyal” patrons, when they need a smoke they can step outside and have one. And as for no smoking at the airport…my god, what do we do on a transatlantic flight….quit your crying and kick the habit before it kicks you…It is a filthy habit and it makes you stink.
Comment by Joe — December 7, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
After reading all the comments on this subject I’m amazed by the hatred that is directed at the smokers. Why don’t these same people apply some of that energy into something positive, like protecting the children who are placed in foster care and end up missing, abused or dead? Maybe work to improve the public school system? Maybe help drive the illegal aliens out of town? I moved to Vegas 9 years ago from a small midwestern town, which by the way began enforcing it’s own SMOKING BAN today and it is much harsher than Nevada’s and I’ve seen this town grow into an overcrowded, undereducated, non-english speaking place where I would not want to raise children. Every day is filled with wonder, no not good wonder, more like I wonder if I’ll get mugged, I wonder if I’ll be able to drive from point A to point B without being run off the road or hit by a driver who is too busy playing with the stereo volume, watching DVD’s or talking on a cell phone and I wonder if myself and my loved ones will make it back home safely. I agree with Barb who says the establishments should be able to put up signs saying they allow smoking or they don’t and the patrons can make their own informed decisions. I have been in casinos playing a machine, smoking, when a non-smoker makes a CHOICE to sit next to me and then make comments about my CHOICE to smoke. I can’t help it, but some smartbutt acting like I am commiting a sin, deserves every puff that blows their way. I don’t intentionally do it, but I enjoy when it happens! I guess the casinos will now be flooded with SMOKERS since it’s about the only place we will be allowed to enjoy ourselves, so the non-smokers can have the other places. Also, since we appear set to take over the casinos, we’re going to be getting all the free alcohol! It’s a win-win for us!
Comment by Alexis — December 7, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
Why bother to vote, if someone is just going to overturn what you voted in favor of? I am going to find out the business’s involved and will boycott them. I won’t spend one dime to benefit their business.People are sick of it and it is a health hazard. It isn’t just an annoyance.
I say lets stand together and boycott the businesses that have brought this lawsuit.
Comment by Martha — December 7, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
I am addicted to a habit that kills me and others around me. I can’t beat this addiction and don’t even want to beat it. I need everyone around me to allow my addiction to continue to exist. I care about me. My addiction is more important to me than what damage it may do to others around me.
This is what smokers broadcast to me (a non-smoker). This is about Selfishness vs. Self-lessness. If you care more about others than yourself, your whole perspective will change.
Comment by Marc Jenks — December 7, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Smoking hurts not only children, but healthy adults. Ask any physician. Second hand smoke not only impacts the health of this community, but it drains our community of medical resources. Death and disease caused by second hand smoke is slow and painful. Let the voters’ voice stand. Give Question 5 alive to keep us alive.
Comment by Alliance — December 7, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
Get the judge thrown out of office for doing something so stupid and not obey the laws whtat kind of a judge cant obey laws for what he to upheld.
We dont need a judge representing us like this hes a harm to Las Vegas and needs to be out PLEASE GET Him out office
Please channel 8 whats his name so we can get this started he needs to be out.
Brad
Comment by Brad — December 7, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
I was born and raised in Vegas and just recently moved to Flroida. However, I still keep up to date with the happenings in Vegas and I believe that this Question 5 ordeal is a load of crap. Vegas was never meant to be a family orientated town. Vegas should be left alone, the way it was when I left: where smoking, gambling and all else go hand in hand no matter what!!
Comment by Jessica — December 7, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
I Guess the judge just does’t want his job because he is finished in this town. It’s not the letter of the law, but the intent of the law
Comment by B Ducaj — December 7, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
Having been both a smoker and a non-smoker in the past two years, I understand the complaints of those who are tired of putting up with smoke. When I wasn’t smoking, there were certain bars I stopped going to because the smoke bothered me. HOWEVER…I made that choice myself, I didn’t try to force the owner to ventilate the bar so that I was happy.
The constitution protects the rights of property owners. It says nothing about the rights of non-smokers to force others to bend to their will. If you don’t like the smoke, don’t go to the restaurant or bar. That is called free choice.
And by the way-I suggest you don’t take your kids to bars, at least until they’re 21!
Comment by Rick — December 7, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
It’s is now time to boycott all the businesses that signed on to this lawsuit especially their leader TERRIBLE’S and when this special interest judge comes up for election get rid of him. This could only happen in Las Vegas. No other judge in this country would dare to come up with a ruling like this.
Now I can see why people say “my vote doesn’t mean anything so why vote’.
Shame, Shame on the special interests as they have no regard for our health or their own.
Comment by David — December 7, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
OK, let me ask you something:
Wasn’t the question written the same way BEFORE the election as it is now? So, the bar and tavern owners clearly were able to challenge its constitutionality PRIOR to putting it on the ballot… correct?
The fact is, they did not… They were so certain that question 4 would pass that they did not challenge the wording or constitutionality of question 5 until they lost. Now that they lost, they are claiming it is unconstitutional. However, if it is written the same way now as it was then, why was it not challenged BEFORE they lost? I’m confused. Doesn’t this seriously hurt their credibility?
Another question:
Isn’t Nevada (including Las Vegas) still part of the United States of America? Last I checked all 50 states were governed by a democracy. This democracy is what makes us so great. We can vote and pass or not pass things as a people. So, saying Las Vegas should be exempt from this right of the people because its “sin city” means essentially we should not be governed by that same democracy… So, perhaps the next vote should be whether or not Las Vegas should break apart from the Union and become its own “country” with its very own governing rules. To say Las Vegas should be exempt from the laws which govern this great nation (i.e. the right to VOTE on issues) simply because it is the “last place on earth naughtiness is allowed” is absurd. Those who think we should be treated different because we’re “sin city” should try to get it on the ballot and decide if they’d like a dictatorship, communism, socialization, etc. in the next general election.
I think we’re loosing site of the fact this measure was put through the same legality at its inception as any other measure and it got on the ballot and it passed. What you think of smokers and non-smokers is beside the point.
This should have been challenged long before now if people had an issue with how it was worded or thought it was “deceiving” to the public. It is being challenged now because bar and tavern owners are upset it passed.
And, I may remind the general public that not all issues are clear and completely understood by the voting public when they go out to vote in any election. It is a sad truth that many voters are not entirely educated on every single consequence of every single issue. This goes for every state. There are always some people who will not completely understand an issue, yet still will vote a certain way based on how they PERCEIVE that issue. I am not advocating this, as I think we should all be well educated when we vote, but I think we can all agree some people do NOT have their facts straight when they go to the polls. With that said, should every side that does not win the vote get to sue because people “did not understand” the repurcussions of their vote? Please give the voting public more credit than that. My guess is you’ll always find people after something is put into law that say… “oh, I shouldn’t have voted this way or that cause look what it did”…. but the vote still stands in those cases. Why would this be any different?
Basically, this state (Las Vegas included) is a democracy and while you can bash smokers or non-smokers and say whether business will go up or down because of this vote, the vote is done and question 5 passed.
Comment by Sonia — December 7, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
REMEMBER HERNDON at the next ELECTIONS - this kind of judge we don’t want or need. The will of the electorate has been disregarded by this crooked judge. If club owners want to fill their premises with cancer, let them make them ‘private member clubs’ - then they can breath the same poison their preferred customers want to die by. Figures that our political system gets DISQUALIFIED in VEGAS. Who else is sick of it?
Comment by Greg — December 8, 2006 @ 12:18 am
So a judge decided to disregard the peoples choice on the smoking ban. So,why is it that we vote?
Businesses in the state of Washington when through this panic mode,only to findout that their business base increased.
Comment by Marilyn Allen — December 8, 2006 @ 12:41 am
I’m a smoker, and have been for about 45 yrs now. I voted in favor for the anti-smoking law #4, but against #5. As a smoker I’m very aware of what my second hand smoke may cause to others and make a conscious effort to not offend. I’d appreciate it if our non-smokers might be as thoughtful. But, it seems not. Is this how our local and national government is going to be run now? Will we eventually have fat police for those of us that are overweight?
Comment by Susan Surface — December 8, 2006 @ 1:19 am
I am sick of this debate. If you want to smoke, go outside. I am tired of suffering because of someone else’s disgusting habit. I would like to go out for once to have a good time without the sickening smell in my hair when I get home. Smoking is not a handicap but a conscious choice by the smokers themselves. We do not have to conform to meet their needs. If you don’t want to go outside to smoke…quit. Your bad habits should not be my problem. The people have spoken; get cigarettes out of restaurants.
Comment by Kristin P. — December 8, 2006 @ 5:51 am
I am amazed at some of the ignorant comments posted above by non-smoking, holier than thou, sanctimonious (Susan, did I spell that right?) MORONs. This is LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, NOT Santa Barbara, California, or anywhere else. You all moved here because of the cost of living and plentiful jobs, yet you voted to jeapordize that same way of life by putting small business on the line and thousands of people on unemployment. All you NON SMOKING HOLIER THAN THOU idiots, I dare you to throw your millenium scholarships back at the state, because they were funded by big tobacco i.e. RJ Reynolds. (How am I doing Susan, still spelling correctly or did you lose track because you don’t know the meaning of a few of my words?) Now I ask you one more question. How are you going to like waiting in long lines for your cheap meal at the one local bar/grill that kept food instead of smoking? OR (oops two more questions) How are you going to like waiting in line for that same meal, but it’s no longer cheap because they have to make a profit and they lost it because of a lack of revenue due to lost gambling business. My mother used to have a saying “His education went to his butt” and that’s what I feel some of the comments here.
Comment by Melinda — December 8, 2006 @ 6:30 am
If in my 48 years on this earth have I ever seen anything more devisive.Family values invade was a haven for adult entertainment!As a non-smoker,it sickens me when some self appointed “do-gooder”,whines about a smokey bar.People smoke in BARS!I have never smoked but I love to drink and gamble.If the smoke bothers you, do these 3 things for me.1.SHUT UP 2.Leave or dont but shut -up!3.Whine about something else, ’cause in a bar and people are smoking,or SHUT-UP!
Comment by Dan Harrison — December 8, 2006 @ 6:37 am
If smoking is an addiction then shouldn’t smokers be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Where is the ACLU?
Comment by Smokers are people too — December 8, 2006 @ 6:52 am
I believe that business owners should have the right to clearly post signs that state that their establishment allows smoking and that children aren’t allowed. If non-smokers choose not to enter that establishement then that is their right. This law isn’t fair to anyone, especially not the businesses that are effected.
Comment by Linda Armknecht — December 8, 2006 @ 7:42 am
I do believe we live in a country of freedom and free enterprise. Entrepreneur spirit is being denied by government by implementing laws which PRIVATELY owned business must adhere to. If individual businesses wish to implement non-smoking bans within their establishment, let them. If they do not, let them; it is, after all, THEIR business. They should be allowed to cater to whatever customers they so desire…Smoker or non-smoker.
Comment by Travis — December 8, 2006 @ 7:44 am
When the no smoking movement started areas were designated to acomodate non smokers. I see no reason why a well ventlated area for smokers can’t be set aside to accommodate them that seems like the Constitutional thing to do.
Please tell me why this cannot be done. —-Thank You
Comment by Mike Skurow — December 8, 2006 @ 7:53 am
I don’t understand. What is the point of having an opportunity to vote if it doesn’t matter. The people of Las Vegas spoke and we don’t want smoking in public places, so what is the problem? If all the casino workers, bars, ect., didn’t want it to pass, maybe they should have gone out and voted. I think it would be nice to go to a bar to eat a meal and my family not come out smelling like a cigarette (even in a convenience store when my young kids go in for some candy). Scotland and many other states just go outside to smoke. So why can’t people from Vegas? If Scotland can get this bill to pass where most of the country smokes and drinks, why can’t Vegas? Why must my family and I be punished and have to smell cigarette smoke? Smoking is a habit and can kill you. It’s not something someone has to do to live. Is that fair? They are the ones with the bad habit not me!
Comment by Teresa — December 8, 2006 @ 8:08 am
I think all these Californians moving here over the past few years need to take their cali ways back home with them. This is sin city, we profit off others habits, drinking, gambling, sex, and yes food. Im a las Vegan, and have been for some time now, this has never been an issue before the big boom a few years ago when all the Californians realized it was cheaper to move to Vegas… go back home if you dont like it. Many restaurants dont offer smoking sections, thats their own choice, and it should remain that way. I as a smoker I do not stop eating at restaurants that dont offer smoking, but at the same time, I do eat out at smoker friendly restaurants more often.
Comment by Jac — December 8, 2006 @ 8:09 am
And by the way, Im sure you have a choice in where you work, you choose to work in the casino… no one here is slavedriving you to work 20 years in a place you cannot stand. If you dont like it, leave. Im sure there are a lot of places a person can find smoke free employment. they even offer smoke free pits in most casinos as well now. Do you realize how much money the casinos, bars, clubs, and pubs will lose on this smoking ban. Figure this, your a gambler,at a casino (otherwise known as your paycheck) and he lights up, you tell him he cannot smoke there, he has to go outside, so he wanders onto the strip, realizes there are a thousand more casinos on the stip and there goes your money, once a gambler is up from the table, there is no holding onto him. Thats why there is cocktail service, so that a gambler never has to leave their seat, because everyone knows, once they do, they are gone, and so are your profits.
Comment by Jac — December 8, 2006 @ 8:14 am
Actually the ballot lost in clark county…so stop whining saying “listen to the people”. The people of Las Vegas spoke, and the ballot was denied… so all you people crying saying you arent going to support these smoker friendly establishments, fine. Do just that. If your that offended, please, go away. Leave Las Vegas, the only place where smoking is still legal, and go to the 49 other states the Great US has to offer.
Comment by Jac — December 8, 2006 @ 8:18 am
Why do we humans always want to control what other humans do?
I don’t care if you smoke or don’t smoke.
It makes me no difference if your lungs are black or pink.
I don’t care if you drink till your toxic and passed out.
I don’t care if your so fat you can’t get out of your bed.
I don’t care if you snort cocaine or smoke meth.
I don’t care if you never exercise.
I don’t care what you do. Why do you care what I do?
I am going to eat where I want and I am going to light up where I want. If all smokers do this and totally ignore this ban there will be no way to enforce the law.
The next time there is a wild fire and your weather person reports that the Health Department has judged the quality of the air in the valley is unsafe for anyone old or young or with a breathing disorder and they should stay indoors…stop and think..
every child at recess is breathing in more toxic smoke in that 20 minutes outside than they ever get in any restaurant from a cigarette in their lifetime.
This is a silly law geared to silly people who need to be spending their time working to feed the hungry, stop the killing in Darfur, help promote the welfare of women and female children in India and Africa, and make sure every American child has the best education our wealthy country can afford.
Comment by Karen — December 8, 2006 @ 8:57 am
Bravo, Herbst Corp and all other plaintiffs. The good people of Nevada didn’t realize what they were voting for and the others, (the Californians who masquerade as Nevadans)who left their own states and are trying to overtake ours, need to learn that Nevada is Nevada and will never be California. If they liked it so much in non smoking Cali why don’t they go back????
Comment by Smokin in Vegas — December 8, 2006 @ 9:41 am
The owners of pubs & taverns are simply afraid of change. The smoking ban will enforce a change to which they have never experienced the outcome.
Don’t be afraid lil pub & tavern owners. You WILL survive this change.
As for 2nd-hand smoke… it has been PROVEN to contain over 4000 toxins that have been PROVEN to cause CANCER. People do NOT survive cancer. Non-smokers will NOT survive if this uninformed Judge Herndon doesn’t let this law come to fruition. Cancer kills. People who smoke inside public establishments should be considered not only selfish, but potential murders.
Comment by Bonnie — December 8, 2006 @ 10:09 am
I am not a smoker. I have never been a smoker and I think Question 5 was and is BAD! I don’t believe anyone should have the right to make a business or business owner decide between serving alochol and letting people smoke or serving food and turning smokers away. Either way the business suffers. I think we all need to think about that! Like my mother always says “to each their own” - if you don’t smoke and don’t want to be around it than go eat, drink and be merry somewhere else! It’s a big city and there’s more than enough room for all of us - non smokers and smokers alike!
Comment by A. Smith — December 8, 2006 @ 10:13 am
For years and years smokers have been polluting the air that I breathe every time I go out. I am tired of it and voted YES on 5. Now they get a reprieve. I say B.S! To the Association that filed the law suit and the judge who granted the injunction: I WILL NOT be going to another tavern until The Clean Air Act is ENFORCED. You have lost my business until you reconsider your priorities to focus on providing a safe environment for your patrons and employees instead of your greed. If everyone that voted YES on 5 would ban together and STOP going to taverns, they would quickly realize their folly. Vote with your dollars and you will see a quick turnaround in their attitude. If there is a tavern out there that will ENFORCE The Clean Air Act, let me know and you can have my business. A final thought – There is some justice in all of this, as smokers can look forward to a very unpleasant end of life experience when they develop cancer and die a horrible death.
Comment by John Judge — December 8, 2006 @ 10:42 am
To clean up the facts regarding the vote: First of all Question 5 did pass in Clark County. Secondly, to Jim up there with his sec of state web site, read it: 586,274 voters voted in the election. This is all supported in this sec of state website.
Comment by roy — December 8, 2006 @ 11:13 am
the i-team should launch an investigation into judge doug herndon’s personal finances too see how much money he has received from the opposing business’s
Comment by jack — December 8, 2006 @ 11:42 am
Give me a break, people chose to smoke I chose not to so why should your choice effect me? Me choosing not to smoke doesn’t cause you to cough or be subject to airborne carcinogens. If you wanna smoke, GO OUTSIDE you big babies. You could probably use the exercise anyway. The people voted and won if you don’t like it move. For how many years have we had to breath in the tainted air from your poor choice? Now we don’t and atleast 54% of the people are happy about it :)!!!!!!
Comment by Mike — December 8, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
As far as Question 5 is concerned, I’m convinced that Judge Douglas Herndon at District Court was “bought” by these businesses that are fighting Question 5. After all, there is “corruption” in this city. How dare he think that he is above the law, and overpower the voters decision? He is going against what the voters voted for (Question 5)! He is using his position of power to manipulate this whole situation. He should be removed from the bench! Come to think of it, could he too be a smoker, too?
Comment by Susana — December 8, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
Suzan, read you own link 586,274 people voted in NV. 310,524 voted YES and 265,375 voted NO. That’s 45,149 more votes and 20,000 of those were from Clark co. And who cares if it was close the MAJORITY spoke and that’s what a DEMOCRACY is..Now if the other 400,000 registered voters are smokers too bad I guess.. There probably the same people we needed to pass question 7. I still don’t see what the big deal is, I have to get up and walk to the restroom when I have to go, so get up and walk outside to smoke. Or spend all your time in the casinos seems simple to me!
Comment by Mike — December 8, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
Why Vote?? The public was asked to vote on a smoking ban and the majority ruled. Are they saying that no one ever bothered to read the law beforehand? It’s hard to beleive that it is now up to one person (the judge) to decide against what the majority of Nevadans voted to pass. People are sick of working in a smoking environment and having to deal with it everytime they go out in public. The majority of Nevadans do not smoke. Listen to the people.
Comment by Lisa Oldroyd — December 8, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
I believe that the question on the ballot was too difficult for some people to understand. If you stop an establishment from smoking and serving food, they will lose customers. If you do not like the smoking, then stay out. It’s your choice. But don’t blame smokers for your objections.
Comment by George — December 8, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
I am very upset that the voters are ‘outvoted’ by a judge who will even consider reviewing the legality of the non-smoking ban.
It’s time for the smokers to realize that the non-smokers are fighting back and will no longer take their secondhand smoke. If they want to kill themselves, let them do it in the privacy of their own homes. My husband and I will definitely boycott any establishment that will still allow smoking in their premises. And remember….there are more of us than them.
Comment by Mrs Philip Fiol — December 8, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
I moved to Clark County from California, a state which had the same concerns about losing business and damaging the economy when ALL businesses and bars went smoke-free a few years back. Guess what? Business is booming, including at the local bars and taverns. Yes, Nevada has gaming, but does that really change things? Do tourists come to Nevada to smoke? No, they come on vacation from other smoke-free states to play and relax.
I for one am sick and tired of breathing the damaging second-hand smoke of careless smokers. My personal favorite? When they drive down the road with the windows open and their cigarette hanging out the window. Don’t they want to inhale their precious smoke?
I hope that the judge listens to the voters of the state of Nevada and lets the law continue to go into effect. I want to raise my children in a smoke-free environment.
The smokers keep saying that their civil rights are being taken away and losing equal rights. What about my rights as a non-smoker? Why should I be literally forced to breathe their second-hand smoke and risk my health and life? I do not want asthma, cancer or other life-threatening dieseases because someone chose to light up. The smokers need to take into account that their actions inflict great and life-threatening damage upon others. They need to consider the ramificiations of their actions and choose wisely.
A proud supporter of question 5. My favorite slogan was: Stay alive with number 5; slam the door on number 4.
Comment by Shelli Clark — December 8, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
If question 5 is so unconstitional then why did it go in effect for the rest of Nevada ? The bottom line is that the Indoor smoking clean air act is not unconstitutional. Its because of one of Nevada’s weak liberal judges ( Herndin ) getting in the way of Nevada voters…
I really love this statement all truth this judge needs to be thrown out of Office he has no right being a judge of anything let alone this. Hes just another stupid Bush supporter who dont know what the hell there doing and force there stupid opinions on the real American voters who know what they want. This bill isnt going to hurt any of the taverns everyone still has to eat they can just go outside and kill themselves isntead of us. It worked in the 4 other states there is no reason why it cant work here.
Get rid og Herdon and get a real person thats not so stupid and WEAK
Comment by Brad — December 8, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
I have always encourage people to vote but now I see that it is a waste of time. Since when does the voter voice not count?
For all you tavern owners!! There are 70% of Nevada residents that don’t smoke and may of them make alot of money. Maybe we would come to your place and gamble and eat if we didn’t have to choke from the awful smell of second hand smoke. I can’t tell you how may times I’ve heard someone say “I’d like to go but the place has too much smoke” You might make more money. Ask the bars in California - they are still all open and making money.
Comment by Susan Willenborg — December 8, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
Let Las Vegas have it’s own laws that other states don’t have, we don’t need to become a california like state with all the rules they have there, just have a smoking section and non smoking section if they don’t like it then don’t go, and if youdon’t like my comment I don’t care!
Comment by Sid — December 8, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
I think Judge Herndon needs to be dragged out of his private little courtroom and locked in a closet loaded with second-hand smoke for those two weeks before his final decision! If restaurant owners are so concerned about losing SMOKERS join with me and ALL NON-SMOKERS boycott them for two weeks to send a message on the impact it will have on their bottom line! There are more NON-SMOKERS in Nevada than smokers!
Comment by Reco — December 8, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
I think banning smoking is a joke. I know the anti-smokers love it. Its just a way for them to push their beliefs upon others. Yeah, the same type of people who will get annoyed and sue you for wishing them a Merry Christmas! Face it, we smokers have rights, just as the anti-smokers and non-smokers do. As far as smokers being ignorant, not more ignorant than when a “Smoke Nazi” has to waive their hand in front of their face and mimic coughing. Those are the people who deserve a cloud of smoke blown in their miserable faces. I’m in Philly and they did the ban wrong. Certain neighborhood bars were exempt. I feel that it should have been clear across the board, if you are going to do something stupid like this. And, to the few nutcases who want a smoke-free Nevada/LV. Make the trip to Dover Downs in Delaware. Do they have table games? No. But, it is smoke free and we don’t have to hear you whine. It’s about time there is a smoker’s coalition, similar to these civil right groups, who will stand up for us. Yes, we know it’s bad. No, we don’t plan on smoking the rest of our lives. BUT….we will be more willing to quit when we are ready, not when a slew of self-righteous hacks tell us to.
Comment by Robert — December 9, 2006 @ 6:51 am
First off, stop comparing other states with Nevada. Until you have a state to compare that has gambling as one of their major industries, the comparison is misleading and inaccurate. No smoker is going to leave a “hot” machine to step outside for a smoke.
Secondly, you can’t honestly compare the fare at your local tavern or sports bar with the menu at an establishment whose primary source of income is food sales. Nobody is being forced to miss out on the chicken fingers, wings or nachos served up at any of these havens for gamblers and smokers. I have a very hard time believing so many people have a problem getting to their trans-fat laden grub at the corner bar because the second-hand smoke is too dangerous for them!
There’s more to worry about from the smog and California wildfire’s smoke for the children and asthmatics of the valley than the second-hand smoke they’re exposed to at the local 21 and over lounge.
Comment by Terry — December 9, 2006 @ 7:10 am
I can see by a lot of the above posts that we have a lot of out of state people who have moved to Nevada voicing their opinion. Most of the long time residents did not vote for 5 because of obvious reasons. People who have moved here from California to take advantage of what this state has to offer need to SHUT THE HELL UP AND QUIT TRYING TO MAKE US OVER. You Californians are not loved here by anyone. We all wish you’d go back and clear out our schools and make our propery values more in tune with the ecomony. GO HOME and go to your Cali bars and drink and scratch lottery tickets. Nevada is all about being the wild wild west where people come from all over the world to play. By the way, most Europeans and Asians still smoke and their tourism is our life blood. This used to be an adult town and should go back to its roots. Put the Family back in control.
Comment by LM — December 9, 2006 @ 9:04 am
this just proves my point. most of these postings are by people who think Q5 was the ban. many people were confused when they went to the polls because the “clean air coallition” aired commercials identical with those that opposed the ban. this law should NOT go into effect for the simple reason that the “CAC” used deceptive practices. besides, most gaming areas could be partitioned off in grocery stores and pharmacies. they are off in their own little corner. this law was made for locals only since the general population of tourists don’t use our pharmacies and grocery stores. and it has been my experience that it is mostly tourists that huff and puff and blow smoke in the faces of others because they feel they are on vacation and have the right to do as they please. most local smokers are consious of those around them and try to avoid blowing smoke into others faces.
Comment by JESSIE LEWIS — December 9, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
The small business pub, bar, tavern owners are the people who will be hurt by this bill. I for one will NOT go to a bar if I can’t smoke while I drink. I know many others who feel the same way.
So, if the bar serves food they have to choose between allowing smokers or serving food in their establishment. Like was said above “either way they WILL lose income”.
Comment by ACandleOfLove — December 9, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
I am living in Reno and lived in Las Vegas for 10 years. I love Vegas!!!! It was a town that bad is ok to let loose and not be politically correct. I smoke, I also have children and if I don’t want them near smoke I keep them away. When their with a sitter I am out smoking drinking gambling and having fun. I should be allowed to make that choice. Especially in Vegas!!!! If you don’t like smoke don’t go where there is smoke!!! ok bye now.
Comment by Michelle DuBois — December 9, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
I suggest that Nevada should change the license plates to read the Silver City not the Silver State and on the Welcome to Las Vegas Sign they should add Smokers Not Welcome.
I’m not going be coming to Nevada to donate my several thousand dollars every year nor will a lot of others.
Just how long before there will be a nonsmokers or clean air tax to make up for the loss of revenue from smokers?
Comment by Bill — December 9, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
I have always thought the public acceptance of smoking is one of the worst things that could ever happen to our society. As it teaches kids (who know how deadly it is) that being self-destructive is acceptable in our society. How can a child understand the concept of smoking being so bad, yet everywhere they go, they see the people who are telling them this, smoking. This includes their movie star idols, sports stars, rock stars, teachers, neighbors, uncles and aunts, and more importantly, their own parents and grandparents.
Of course a child subjected to this, will eventually fall prey to experimentation with some sort of self-destructive or deviant behavior. I mean why not, nothing is as bad as smoking. At least with almost any other type of drug or alcohol, there is a physical change or a perceived benefit, such as running faster, laughing more, better sex, falling down, relaxed inhibitions, etc. There is something that creates an “experience” for a soul searching to escape reality. When smoking nicotine, there’s nothing. It does nothing to make you feel or look better. Look at any smoker and take notice of this (except for in the movies). It has a drastic negative effect on all parts of the body, is a general pain in the neck to keep enough cigs and matches on hand and it’s getting harder and harder to find a location for getting a nicotine fix, it kills millions (incl. innocent non-smokers), is very, very, addicting, burns down houses, puts holes in clothes and furniture, and much more. These are facts that everyone knows, which includes smokers. So why would a person ever want to try that first cigarette? The answer is it’s public acceptance and the billions of dollars spent by the tobacco industry to create the illusion of smoking.
Smoke Free Businesses will do wonders to keep a child or person from ever smoking that first one. They will also help many smokers kick the habit. Statistics show this to be true in every jurisdiction indoor smoking bans have been enacted. Adults don’t take up smoking, kids do, and then most are addicted for life. Do the math and see how much one smoker is worth to this industry.
It will be a wonderful day when all businesses and public areas are smoke-free for us all to enjoy. It’s then that I will go play golf every day (and maybe bowl again).
By the way, to all the bloggers who say “what’s next….are you going to tell us not to eat so much and not to drink coke or alcohol?” Of course not, as long as you don’t sit on me, or throw your empty bottles at me. Do whatever you want to do, you just can’t do it at anyone elses expense. What’s so hard to understand about that for anyone from a civilized society and of reasonable intelligence? The only reason smoking has been accepted this long is because we’re too civilized.
Comment by Bob Duffy — December 10, 2006 @ 6:59 am
This ques.5 victory thing only proves that yes, more than half of the population is stupid. The bill only passed by a 6% magin that’s no overwhelming majority, think about what the ratio of business owners to the general public is, the business owners never had a chance. They should close up shop and screw you too. I don’t like the way 53% of the drivers around here drive I would like to see a law introduced to take away your driving priveleges then you’d now how it feel to have your rights taken away. You don’t have to go to where the smokers are or don’t you know that? They should ban idiots from going out in public. I guess you’all will start going into those places you stayed away from because of smoke maybe even get a job there. There out to be a real majority, 2/3’s required, to change laws. Just a little over half on one side should not give the right to impose major changes on the other 47% they are still just about half. The right thing to do is work out a fair solution. Next there will be a law making you stop driving big cars because they polute more than small ones. Can you see how you’ve been politically used. I quit smoking years ago but I think laws like this one is just another example of how easy your rights can be taken.
Comment by George — December 10, 2006 @ 8:40 am
As Eddie Izzard says “and soon no drinking and no talking” - People will be going to the Library to have a good time at this pace. It’s like trying to put diapers on cows because their waste is bad for the environment. Come on Nevada, you’re supposed to be the wild one.
Comment by Dylan — December 10, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
All Californians that try and come to Las vegas and change it need to go home. If you dont like smoke dont go into smoking places! Dont work in smoking places if you dont like smoke! If you really dont like smoke then move to California where pretty soon you wont even be able to smoke in your own yard!!!
Comment by Lori — December 10, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
The recent post by Sid on Dec 8th is another reason that people who are not from here dont get it. Your non gamong restaurants would still be non smoking. Your gaming bar tavern doesnt need your food business,boycott all you want.The food is served for our players and all those who enjoy a pub atmosphere.If you look around where you live ,you can see that the tavern industry has been exploding the last few years. Do you think that is because of steak and eggs and chicken wings? Not really..taverns have gaming licenses just like the casinos and there should be no exceptions if you want to call this a ban at all..You either ban smoking eveywhere or leave it alone. This is why you have your lawsuit.
Comment by bob — December 11, 2006 @ 9:21 am
Well, I have read most of the comments and just to clarify one thing-this smoking law goes for ALL of Nevada NOT JUST VEGAS. This INCLUDES all those little towns out in the middle of no where that have regular guests that come here to do exactly that-Smoke in a Restuarant and enjoy drinking coffee & playing Keno. I do not agree with the new smoking law. I believe that the business ownders should have a choice between allowing customers to smoke or not. I have been smoking for 12 years and I have a child. Yes, I know there are risks in smoking, but that is MY CHOICE. There are alot more things in the world that do a worse job of killing us off than having a cigerette…For example: What difference is it going to make where we smoke when we’re all dead thanks to no ozone layer? And cigerette smoke does not cause THAT kind of pollution!!!! My other point is going to be this: Since when was a CASINO a “family” place? Last time I checked a REAL CASINO whether it be in Vegas, Reno, Elko, Wendover, or Fallon is a place for ADULTS to relax, have a few beers, smoke a cigerette if they so choose to do, & play slot machines. There are plenty of establishments all over Nevada for “families”. A Casino should not be one of them…this includes the restaurants IN the casino. I don’t mean to sound rude by saying this, as I stated before…I have a child. Nevada needs to stop trying to play copy cat with California & Idaho.
Comment by Summer — December 11, 2006 @ 11:21 am
Whatever happened to “Live and Let Live???” What will be the next soapbox? Will we all be weighed in at the casino door?
Comment by Gene — December 11, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
It is sad to see that in today’s world that money still talks. That if a law is passed and you have enough money you can just pay enough to get it overturned. That’s what the bar owners are doing and trying to look like the good guys claiming they are fighting for our constitutional rights. In a democratic society the people’s voice is what is to be heard and it was with the majority voting for the ban. If you go by what the tavern owners claim you could say all laws are unconstitutional by hindering people’s rights. Why can’t you have a beer in a car if you’re not driving because the law says so, but it’s my constitutional right. People just need to accept what was passed. Isn’t it a non-smokers right not to have to breath in some one else’s habit. Smokers have to just except change smoke outside, in your car, or at home. And if you smoke outside or in you car stop throwing your butts on the ground they just don’t disappear. If you don’t what it in your own car what makes you think we want it on our streets? I’ve lived in Vegas from the early 80’s and am not from California so fall all the above comments of Californian just need to go home or stop trying to make Vegas like Californian it’s not just a Californian way of thinking.Stop trying to shroud your opinion by claiming your fighting some righteous battle between constitutional and unconstitutional, your either a smoker or an non-smoker it went to a vote and the non smokers prevailed.
Comment by Rob — December 11, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
This law was voted on and PASSED, just like any other law!! Besides, WHY should a “drug” be allowed to pollute those of us who choose to breath fresh air and live!!! Smokers should not be so self-centered and stay at home and/or roll up their car windows if they chose to “kill themselves” this way. Why not consider your family, friends and fellow Americans around you. Smoking kills, and stinks. Thank you Nevada for voting for fresh, clean air….let the law be the law!!
Comment by Annie Meadows — December 11, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
I have children and I respect their right not to have to sit and eat in a place where there are people smoking, this is why I don’t take them to these places. When I am alone or with my Mother we go to little bars that serve food for breakfast and smoke all we want. What is wrong with having places for smokers and places for non-smokers, this way everyone has a choice. Let’s face it, non-smokers do not gamble half as much as smokers (unfortunately) and smokers that gamble usually like to drink therefore they need to eat! It is safer for everyone involved that these people eat while they are enjoying themselves gambling and drinking.
Comment by Tara — December 11, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
I can accept non-gaming restaurants to become no-smoking establishments, but I feel gaming taverns with restaurants should be exempted. Gaming is what supports Nevada, and let’s face it, most gamblers smoke, so we should be grateful to “the gambler” for providing so many jobs and for maintaining the aura of a true Las Vegas environment and not to mention a state tax free state. Hence all whiny non-smokers should stay out of gaming bars and eat and drink at the other many many many many other places that won’t have smoking if gaming taverns/restaurants are exempted. Besides question 4 was poorly represented, misleading and vague. It made a lot of smokers think they they had to vote “no” on the proposition if they weren’t for the smoking ban. I say move back to where you came from and let Vegas be Vegas!! We don’t want to become Nevadafornia. Too bad Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin aren’t still alive; the rat packers would probably kick some sense into these liberal powers that be.
Comment by Maricel O'Brien — December 12, 2006 @ 12:00 am
Cant you smokers stop smoking long enough to eat some food? Get over yourselves. Nevada voted. You lost. This democracy decided to go with health over your personal pleasure thats killing more then just smokers. Many resturants both in Nevada and outside strive in a no smoking enviroment. Some even report better earnings per quarter now that they are smoke free. How can you say its stomping on your personal rights? What about non-smokers personal rights to not have lung cancer or other health issues caused by smokers?
Comment by Fernando — December 12, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
We were not given a choose It was cut your left toe off or your right toe off.Where was the choose of no law at all
Comment by Scot Jurgens — December 12, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
What is this stop thinking about your rights and start thinking about mine BS? “Us non-smokers should be able to eat without having to breath smoke”. There are hundreds of resturaunts that are non-smoking. You just want it all.
“This judge has been bought off and should be removed”. What is this nonsence? This judge is doing exactly what the law requires him to do.
Comment by Ken Brown — December 13, 2006 @ 5:04 am
Has anyone noticed that chain restaurants that have been smoke free such as Mimi’s Cafe has done well without smoking? I understand this is a gaming state, but since this blog has centered around the “Tavern” business, would we really miss them from our residential neighborhoods? I could care less if the multiple neighborhood taverns near my house went out of business. It will keep my community safer.
But back to the smoking subject. Why do smokers feel it is alright to subject non-smokers to their nasty habits? Or how about the “Smoking Huddle” in front of office building entrances? Why do I have to walk through your cloud of smoke in order to enter the office building? I agree you have a personal right to light up, but don’t you think you are a bit selfish if we are in a small restaurant and you decide to light up? We have to share the same airspace and why not make it hospitable for all of us? How would you like it if we are in a small room together and I constantly defecate next to you???? Mmmmmm…..
It is disappointing that we are encouraged to vote and yet have our votes become meaningless. What is the point of voting? We might as well become a communist state.
Comment by Reggie — December 13, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
About 5 years ago the were rumblings that the casinos greed was going to effect the tavern industry thru some type of smoking regulation.The casinos have witnessed the thriving growth of the tavern segment and equate that to financial opportunity for them if they can get all the smoking players to come to their casinos. I agree that second hand smoke is bad and should be banned liks others states.However,those with gaming licenses should prevail under the same laws. The taverns have earned their gaming rights thru the same regulations as casinos. The licenses are a privilege that we maintain thru audits,fingerprinting,metro investigations etc. Along with maintaining that privilege should come with protection from unconstitutional regulations.
Comment by bob — December 14, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
HEY! Give it up! There is NO safe level of second hand smoke! The larger percentage of us realize that fact. We voted. You lost. We breathe. OH! And Mr.”long time local smoker”, it’s Nevada, NOT Nevawda!
Comment by R Daniels — December 15, 2006 @ 5:44 am
Why is it that the people who support smoking keep saying that Question 4 and Question 5 were vague and hard to understand? I read both questions carefully and fully understood them! The people who support smoking are trying to use every “trick in the book” to have Question 5 defeated!
Comment by Susana — December 15, 2006 @ 11:41 am
I think smoking should be allowed in bars with a GRILL. Come on now people your children dont belong in there anyways. I do agree with all other places being non-smoking. Like grocery stores ect. Lets just all get along.
Comment by Denise — December 15, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
I wish I could invest in an Indian Casino because the “nanny state” is going to rule Las Vegas in 5-10 years. Who is going to want to go there anymore? I am already canceling my May vacation. Vegas was made even better as all these other states push their do-gooder mentality on everyone. If the voters want to ruin their cash cow, that is their prerogative. I saw one lady complaining, “we are sick of being the world’s smoking section.”
Let’s see how she feels when Nevada stops being the world’s one-way night deposit box too. After I post, I’m going to sign up for my Gila Indian Reservation player’s card.
Comment by Mike Preston — December 15, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Could it be that most of the people who voted for question 5 also did not read the fine print on the new minimum wage law that was also passed? Now small businesses are faced with having to drop their health insurance. The voters must be very careful on these questions because they are written in a manner that most do not understand. Here in Nevada where we have had an exploding economy,now have to face the possibility of small businesses closing down,huge unemployment and a health crisis.Why is it when things are going great,the lawmakers find ways to destroy it. When you attack small businesses like the tavern industry where gaming is present,gaming taxes can no longer be collected and now we will end up with a state tax….just like you know who……people think about what you are doing. It was fine just the way it was…
Comment by bob — December 15, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
keep the smokers out of range of children and older adults who can’t handle second hand smoke. keep all of us safe let the smokers kill themselves not us
Comment by diane zee — December 17, 2006 @ 10:48 am
The question 5 voters should realize that the bill was not a complete smoking ban and should have been. However,had the casinos not been exempted,the bill never would have made it on the ballot to begin with.The casinos allowed 5 to remain as long as they are not affected and crushing the tavern gaming licensees in their wake. Relax non smokers. You will get your legislation in due time. No one is being bought and your vote does matter. Dont blame the tavern owners for trying to get clarification as to to why they should not share exempt status and prevail under the same gaming laws.
Clearly,this was a greedy effort to increase profits on the casino side and quite frankly has not a lot to do with public health issues. Question 5 should have been a complete ban so take your frustrations out on your states only industry….gaming and tourism. Last I looked,that was still legal and thats why we are here in the first place.
Comment by bob — December 17, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
This is about the most idiotic thing to debate.GO OUTSIDE TO SUCK YOUR BUTTS! You have no right to poison others. There are more people that do not smoke than there are smokers.Your fumes are carcinogenic.
Because someone wishes to drink a glass of beer or play a 20 in a poker machine does not mean they are trying to kill themselves!We should all have the right to breathe clean air.You take away that right when you blow your butt fumes indoors.
Comment by R.Daniels — December 19, 2006 @ 7:34 am
I have an idea for the next proposal. I’d like to see a ban on backyard grilling, as well. When I spend time in my covered veranda with my wide brimmed hat and long-sleeved shirt (to avoid skin cancer), I don’t appreciate the neighbor forcing me to breathe in his carcinogenic smoke billowing out from his bbq. I’d like to see this kind of thoughtlessness and selfishness stopped A.S.A.P.!! I’m out here just trying to avoid cancer so I can go on worrying about any number of other ways my life expectancy might not reach 100. After that, we can take on the restaurants that allow their smoky grill exhausts to ruin my trip to the local strip mall.
Comment by Neil — December 19, 2006 @ 10:08 am
Well, today is judgement day…what will happen? Personally I think that this needs to go to a re-vote as people did not understand the explanations and therefore could not anticipate the adverse effects that these new rules could have on “Sin City.”
I can’t stand people that go into a bar and start whining about the smoke — go to another bar where there is no smoking then! It is our choice to smoke — we don’t force it onto you so quit forcing your non-smoking bs onto us! Go back to California you tree-huggers!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ALREADY!
More productive laws could be made than this non-smoking law — like not driving with cell phones! That has more adverse and immediate issues than second hand smoke does. Surely more people are killed or hurt by idiots on cell phones talking or texting than second hand smoke!
More people have problem gambling than problem smoking! Is gambling going to be next? Watch out Nevada — the city that was built on sin is headed down a path of righteousness — “God” help us all!!
Comment by Brigid — December 19, 2006 @ 10:29 am
Wake up people! The US Surgeon General has stated that there is NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE TO TOBACCO SMOKE which puts it in the same category as nerve gas and asbestos! Is everyone in Nevada so uneducated that they do not realize they are being duped by the murdering tobacco industry? When people smoke around ANY LIVING CREATURE they are commiting pulmonary and cardiovascular RAPE! I suffer from asthma. This is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue! Breathing is NOT a choice. A person who smokes can light up their miniature toxic waste dump OUTSIDE. I CANNOT enter an establishment which allows smoking, PERIOD. I would end up in the hospital! 80 percent of Nevada residents do NOT smoke! Do the math! Smokers can still gamble, they just have to leave their nicotine, cyanide, polonium 210, arsenic, cadmium, battery acid, drano, formaldehyde, poison emitting waste dump OUTSIDE! Why should ANYONE have the right to kill another person with their drug addiction? People who drive drunk GO TO JAIL. More people die from SECONDHAND SMOKE than from ALL car accidents combined, yet no one has EVER paid the consequence! I am sick for life from OTHER PEOPLE’S nicotine freebasing drug addiction. I never CHOSE to work in a smoke-filled casino. I just had to work. No one should be forced to breathe 63 known cancer causing carcinogens, 5,000 chemicals and 599 additives to have a job, much less be forced to be subjected to it when going out to have a drink, gamble, or eat with friends! THIS IS CRIMINAL! GET RID OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY! IT IS THE ONLY LEGAL PRODUCT ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH THAT KILLS WHEN USED AS DIRECTED!… NOT ONLY THE PERSON USING IT, BUT EVERYONE AROUND THEM!
Comment by Diana Inagaki — December 19, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
I AM AGAINST THE BAN!! AS A NONSMOKER, A MOTHER, AND GRANDMOTHER.THIS WILL AFFECT THE ECONOMY OF OUR STATE IN MANY WAYS FIRST KITCHEN STAFF AND WAIT STAFF WILL BE FIRED.MANY COULD LOSE THEIR HOMES,THE BUSINESS OWNERS MAY HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR DOORS,AND WITHOUT THE ADDED REVENUE THE STATE MAY HAVE TO IMPLEMENT A STATE TAX. ALSO WHEN PEOPLE GAMBLE, THEY DRINK, WITHOUT FOOD BEING SERVRD THEY ARE DRIVING ON OUR ROADWAYS, IN A DRUNKEN STUPOR THE FOOD WOULD HAVE HELPED TO SLOW THE EFFECT OF ALCOHOL DOWN SO DUI ACCIDENTS ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ONES WILL GO UP!!! DO YOU WANT TO DRIVE NEXT TO THEM IN YOUR MINIVAN FILLED WITH KIDS??? ALL NEVADA PUBS, TAVERNS AND BARS THAT HAVE GAMING SHOULD BE EXEMPT, FROM THE LAW!! WHAT KIND OF PARENT TAKES A CHILD TO THOSE PLACES ANYWAY???ALL OTHER PLACES CAN LIVE WITHIN ITS GUIDELINES. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF RESTURANTS, THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY NONSMOKERS CAN CHOOSE STAY OUT OF THE PUBS AND TAVERNS LEAVE THEM TO THE SMOKERS THEY HAVE RIGHTS TOO!!
Comment by EVE JENSEN — December 19, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
Show one MEDICAL study that directly states the number of people that die from second hand smoke!!
Comment by jay walsh — December 19, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
I was born n raised in Vegas n they tried to make a casino non-smoking once. Does anyone know how long this casino stayed open for? 6 months and then it went bankrupt. Does anyone realize that if a casino went broke in 6 months then, how long would it take for free standing bars to go bankrupt as well? Does anyone realize how many people are going to be put out of work or how the D.U.I rate will go up? I know that serving food dosen’t sober someone up but it does buy you time. Since when did Las Vegas turn into “saint city?” In California this worked but in California they dont have gaming. They make their money off the food and liquor and we don’t. If kids don’t primarily hang out in casinos then what is Kids Quest, Bowling alleys, Movie theatres, Roller Coasters, Arcades, Circus-Circus, and the Excalibur all built around? I don’t usually see kids hanging out in bars! So why not leave bars alone have the parents take responsibility for their own children, and if you want to take your kids out to eat at a bar then take responsibility for it and don’t complain about the smoking! Why dont they make the free standing restaurants non-smoking like IHOP, Dennys, etc. etc. and if they still aren’t happy with that then go back to your non-smoking California.
Comment by LORI — December 19, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
American Cancer Society’s Buffy Martin-Tarbox said she was “perplexed and shocked” at the Resort Association entry into the controversy. How naive. These pundits sit in their ivory towers and pretend to understand the real world. Obviously, the NRA joined the anti-smoking camp because they know enactment of the law will drive customers from bars to their casinos. It’s all about money. If they cared so much about the welfare of Nevadans, they would ban smoking everywhere, including casinos,where 26% of the population is employed. Give me a break.
Comment by Ross — December 19, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
Once again, just like in the wording on the ballot, people are confused here with the issues.
If we are to ban smoking, ban it across the board and let it be. If we are going to be selective in banning smoking, stand up and expect a fight.
This issue is not about the evils of smoking, it is about the fairness and protection afforded by the constitution.
It is also selective in it’s intent..If we are to protect children, employees snd others, does this mean we only offer this protection to food servers in Taverns and not Bar Tenders ? What about their rights ?
Did we forget to offer this protection to dealers, cocktail waitresses and floormen, since this law exempts them from coverage ?
Are we saying that visitors can smoke in LV but locals can’t ?
I say prevent people under 21 from entering taverns…
Section off restaurant areas for no smoking..period
Allow bar tenders to serve food to people that have been drinking..
Remove this attachment from taverns to grocery stores, day care centers,convenience stores, ect.
Let competition generate the most correct environment.
In California, in their great wisdom, they banned smoking. Hurrah !
But I don’t remember anything ever being done about 9 out of 10 cars on the freeways ( most of them SUVs ) having one occupant.
Wrong message to our neighbors..it’s ok to not bother me, right now, even though I knew this was a smoking establishment when I came in….but the hell with the rest of the world as we poison the air worldwide with our exhaust..
Comment by Jerry — December 19, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
What is so difficult to understand? There is no smoking in the courtroom and everyone accepts it! Smokers still go to court and are required to refrain from any and each of the definitions of smoking which the plantiff’s attorneys questioned. The public is not as stupid as the plantiff’s attorneys led the court to believe that we could not understand a simple law:
“Do not smoke where food is served.” There is no doubt that 99% of the public will honor the law. The question of enforcement is not enough of an issue to even address the matter.
It is the responsibility of the court to now refine the law as time goes on and resolve the small questions that will come up from time to time, but to throw the whole entire law would be an insult to all Nevada voters.
Comment by DAVE — December 19, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
There are plenty of restaurants that cater to the non-smokers. I believe it should be the choice of the restaurant or bar to decide if they want to allow smoking. It is the right of the individual to decide if they want to patronize a smoking or non-smoking establishment. Period.
Comment by Linda Crawford — December 19, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
Why would you take a job at a bar or at a blackjack table? If you know that there is going to be smoking? My brother is a tri-athlete and used to be a dealer. He couldn’t stand the smoke so he switched jobs within the casino and was a valet guy and is now a bellman and he makes even more money then he did when he was a dealer.
Comment by LORI — December 20, 2006 @ 12:43 am
I really wish these hippie Californians would go back to where they came from and leave us Nevadans alone. I work in a local bar and grill and I was told flat out that I would have to be let go if this ban goes back into effect.
How fair is that? Who are the Kalifornistan smoke Nazis trying to protect? Certainly not myself or my family when I am let go.. thats for sure.
Let the BAR OWNERS Decide if they allow smoking or no.
Its not “SMOKE FREE”, its SMOKE LESS, less pay for me and thousands of other workers busting their butts to make a living.
Comment by Gentra Suliman — December 20, 2006 @ 7:50 am
I’m a smoker but I want to quit. Many of my smoking friends also want to quit, but it is very difficult to do so if your weekend entertainment includes going down to the local bar for a drink and maybe to watch a band, watch the game, throw a $20 in the poker machine - or whatever. Having been to other places such as Oregon, California, Colorado that have smoking bans in bars, it’s not that big of a deal. If you gotta smoke, you step outside (at least Las Vegas weather is conducive to that most of the time). It would not break my heart to see the ban go into effect, it might just help me and many other smokers who want to quit make it through our New Year’s Resolutions in 2007.
However - the most compelling argument I have read out of the posts here is by Bob on December 17th - that this should have been a complete smoking ban and should not have exempted casinos. That this bill could economically benefit one group while hurting another isn’t right, and I don’t blame the tavern owners for fighting it. Why don’t we table it until we can come up with a bill that doesn’t push local gaming business to the big casinos?
Comment by Glaphre — December 20, 2006 @ 11:18 am
Nobody bothers to mention the World Health Organization’s twenty year study of an evenly divided group of non-smokers, who half lived with smokers and the other half with non-smokers. After twenty years, there was absolutely no measurable difference in the health of either group. I realize that many do not like the smell of smoke, and some are allergic, etc.; but this is just another example of some people attempting to take away the rights of all. I agree there should be some restrictions, but when my employer(a large casino), in an attempt to be politically correct, bans a totally seperate smoking lounge, with a seperate ventilation system, and patronized only by smokers-THAT is going way too far over the line
Comment by Fred — December 20, 2006 @ 11:39 am
Some of you are arguing back and forth about smoking being the issue. This is not about smoking ladies and gentlemen. This is abotu the rights of the owners of these Taverns to make a decision on what is best for them. I’ll venture to bet that 100% of the owners of these locations voted against this issue. They have everything at risk. the other 200,000 people had nothing at risk, and yet they were asked to make this decision.
Having this issue in court for the reasons it is there is like defending the 1st amendment based on Pornography. It is right, but it is disgusting that the constitution has to be used for somethign like that.
I am a smoker, but this does not upset me because I do not htink I can not smoke in a bar. It upsets me because it is a right taken away from a business person. This one you may say ‘I hate smoke so I’m happy’ Eventually it will be somethign you care about. There will be no one left to stand up against anything else that ‘they’ care to implement.
I also understand there may be many long time Nevadans that don’t like smoking. But this law here has Commiefornia written all over it.
I personally am declaring war on californians who are now living here. The only way I know you are from commieland is by your license plate. Watch out. I’m driving around my neighborhood, and I’m turning all of you in. You are cheating the state of the revenues from your vehicle registration. Watch over your shoulder. We are goign to get you.
I’ve also always been conciderate of non-smokers while in a casino. blowing the other way or putting it out. All bets are off my friends. Now if I know it bothers you and I’m in a casino don’t sit next to me. I promise I will hold the smouldering Butt on your side and make sure I don;t put it out 100% so it drifts in your direction. If I know you are from Commiefornia I will put it out. Low and BEhold expect a big nasty Cigar to be lit. If you get up I will cash out and follow you around. YOu chased me out of the bars now you will pay dearly for it in the casinos.
Another thing becareful cutting me off or missing your turn in the road. You do not have the right away and I swear my 3 ton trtuck will destroy your little Prius. It will be your fault. Commiefornia plates to me are going to have a bullseye on them now.
Leave my state alone. You can thank me later. We do not want to be Commiefornia and we don;t need you.
Comment by jaa — December 20, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
There is no “right” to smoke in public. The only possible “right” to smoke that anyone may have is the right to privacy and this ban only effects public locations. Second, the State has the power to pass law to regulate the “health, safety and general welfare” of the citizens as long as it doesn’t take away Constitutionally provided rights (and smoking in public is not a Constitutionally protected right). Third, the State has a right to regulate businesses and this is a regulation on business. Fourth, the Legislature has power to define the law, which means they can easily clarify any “enforcement issues” in the legislative session that is coming up in February. Finally, it was passed by the voters. Stop being sore losers, accept that we live in a Democracy and stop smoking in prohibited areas.
As a side note, I think if this Judge Herndon does magically find some constitutional right to force others to suck down toxic chemicals, and misuses his power to stike down a voter passed law thereby becoming another activist judge trouncing on the will of the people to pursue a personal agenda, we should use the Constitutionally provided power of the re-call to remove him from the bench.
Comment by Troy — December 20, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
I voted against the smoking ban, and I know many people who could not vote due to not being a citizen that would not have voted for that ban.Our economy is going to be damaged, Las Vegas is a gambling, drinking and smoking city. People come to Las Vegas to get away from the uniformed life in other states. Bars and casinos especially should not have smoking bans, these places are not intended for children. So, those who did this for the “children” are full of it. This ban has not even taken effect and my brother has already lost his job, he was a cook in a bar forced to close their kitchen! I have never smoked a day in my life and never plan on it, but our economy is going to suffer. The people who say it is selfish of smokers to smoke in public do not realize that it is just as selfish to not let them smoke! This is no longer a free country, we are telling people when and where they smoke. So, to those of you who are for this ban, do not be surprised when our DUI rate increases, due to people not being able to eat, drink and smoke. So, what next? Banning people with drivers licenses from drinking because they might get behind the wheel and cause an accident? Back to prohibition! Lastly, for those of you who voted for this ban, because second hand smoke MAY kill you, I hope you do not drive, because, what do you think exhaust is, a breath of fresh air?
Comment by Dominique — December 20, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
The problem I have with the ban is that it forces food out of bars. So what we have now is people drinking on empty stomachs and driving home. I think bars should have to serve food. I’ve seen laws were as long your sales are 70% alcohol you can smoke I’m in favor of that. At least someone can grab a bite to eat. I know if I have 1 drink on a empty stomach it affects me diffrently than if I have a bite to eat!
Comment by Tim Lovell — December 20, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
I just saw the story about the smoking ban in Las Vegas on T.V.
As a smoker and tourist to Vegas I was dissappointed, I looked forward to coming to vegas and playing the slots and could even smoke in the smoking areas at the airport. Now I might as well save the airfare and go to the Indian casino in Louisana.
Comment by Pam Hayes — December 20, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
the public has voted….ban smoking in places that sell food….How stupid are people who smoke, knowing that it may eventually kill them. why takes others with you…..wake up
Comment by ma benik — December 20, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
The intent of the Smoking Ban Act was to “protect children and families from second-hand smoke”. The bill as authored is selective in excluding casinos, therefore it is unconstitutional, period. If the casinos had not been excluded the attorney for the NRA would be sitting on the other side of the aisle this week armed with briefcase fulls of cash from the casinos to defeat the ban. This is why the the authors of the bill excluded the casinos in the first place. We all have rights. I respect yours, don’t take mine away. There is a happy medium. Let’s all work together to make BOTH sides of the issue happy. Attempting to duplicate laws of other states is not good business for the state of Nevada, we are unique in many ways. If you don’t like it, there are many roads out of town.
Comment by Darryl — December 20, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
A simple fact that is often overlooked: There are more non-smokers than smokers. As California businesses have experienced, profits have gone up as they have received the added business of the non-smokers who didn’t go to their places when they had smoking.
Smokers still go, smoke outside, come back in. AND non-smokers now patronize these establishments. It’s a WIN-WIN situation for everyone.
In fact, even the smoker who now has to go outside, will probably smoke less, which means saving money and being healthier. WIN-WIN
Finally, Question 5 would have passed even more overwhelmingly so had there not been the Question 4 on the ballot. Q4 was there only to confuse the voters.
Walt D in LV
Comment by Walt D in LV — December 20, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
The political smokescreen was finally unveiled in the form of a large elephant,the Nevada Resort Association. It is finally crystal clear who is behind question 5 and that this bill in its true form is about greed not smoking. The defense attorneys were slaughtered by the tavern owners because they could not answer one simple question.” What does the differences in gaming licenses have to do with protecting families and children from second hand smoke? When ,in fact,the casinos do much more to market families and kids with bowling centers,kids quest,roller coasters and movie theaters. The taverns are over 21 properties by law and have no such entities. Be patient,question 5 voters, as you will get your smoke free laws enacted with enforcement in due time. However,smoking will be permitted where gaming devices are present. What smells here is the presence of greedy elephant not second hand smoke.
Comment by bob — December 20, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
I hope the posts on here from smokers enlighten the smokers who want to stop smoking to see their addiction from a more educational perspective. There will never be a rational argument that can be made to allow someone to legally hurt or kill another person. The effects of smoking, including secondhand smoke, have been proved beyond any doubt. These facts can even be found on the tobacco companies own literature and web sites as part of the tobacco settlement lawsuit which forced them to pay billions and admit this information (which they have known for many years). The only claims that dispense doubt about the health effects of smoking are very old and are made by the tobacco industry (or studies they have financed) which give smokers a sense that they are fighting for their personal freedom and are part of their ingenious tactics to pit smokers vs. non-smokers. The more determined and upset a smoker gets about feeling like their rights are being violated, the more of a committed smoker they become. These smokers may likely smoke the rest of their lives. It’s absolutely ingenious of the tobacco industry. If a smoker feels animosity and dislike towards non-smokers, do you think they will ever become a non-smoker some day? Of course not, it’s brilliant. Once a smoker sees how they have been brainwashed, the 83% of smokers who want to quit will find it much easier.
The percentage of smokers have decreased in every area that smoking bans have been implemented. This law in no way tells smokers they can’t smoke. For some reason, many of the posts from smokers on this blog seem to be going through withdrawal pangs at the mere thought of not smoking anywhere and everywhere they want. To prove this theory even further, smokers feel these same withdrawal pangs and greater anxiety WHILE smoking their last cigarette, and not after they have run out.
For the record…I am not from California, I am not a liberal, I am a 30-year Las Vegas resident, I drive an SUV, and I think everyone should be able to eat, drink, or do, whatever they want. I will always support everyones’ right to freedom no matter how stupid it may be. However, never can a persons actions ever be at the expense of someone else.
When a person says to me, but Mr. Bob Duffy, you used to smoke. I say to them, “that’s true….and I used to paint my house with lead-based paint too”. It’s funny no one ever argues their Constitutional right to continue using that product. It’s funny, that when even one person dies or gets sick from tainted spinach or lettuce, everyone stops eating it immediately without it being mandated by law. Yet for some reason, even knowing 1200 people die a day from smoking, and 1 out of 8 is a non-smoker, it has little or no effect.
Comment by Bob Duffy — December 20, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
As a teacher, wife of a food and beverage manager, mother of 2 and a former resident of a state that banned smoking in public places in 1985 (Washington State). I whole heartedly support the ban. Here are the reasons:
1) I AGREE, THE BAN SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED CASINOS, but this is at least a step in the right direction.
2) Smoking in an enclosed public place is a privelege NOT A RIGHT that is protected under the constitution. The law was passed by the PEOPLE — the voice of the people is protected by the constitution. Voting is a right, and 54% of us voted in favor of the ban.
I’m not particularly thrilled that our newly elected governor is the candidate that was elected, but you don’t see the teacher’s union taking the issue to court, to have the other candidate elected that the teacher’s union supported. If the bar owners really cared about the economic impact, THE BAR OWNERS and their CUSTOMERS should have voted. Now is not the time to complain about it — what’s done is done. What message do we send to our children if this law is overturned …. EVEN IF YOU VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE SOMEONE WITH ALOT OF POWER CAN OVERTURN YOUR VOTE …. THAT IS WRONG…. THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE SHOULD COUNT HIGHER THEN THE VOICE OF 1 JUDGE.
Smokers don’t have the right to pollute the air of those around them and increase the likelihood myself or my children would get lung cancer — anyone thinking PETER JENNINGS. Even he implored us to stop smoking during his last few days. I read a few of these posts by parents claiming to oppose the ban. I have to wonder what makes a parent say “smoking around my kid is acceptable”.
3) My husband has been working in the food and beverage industry for 25+ years in Las Vegas. He does not feel that the smoking ban is as much of a hardship as people think it will be. In fact he mentions that usually there is a much longer waiting list for nonsmoking sections of restaurants and that if customers don’t have to wait long waits then people might be more inclined to dine in various establishments even when said establishments are busy. He also worked in California and cited that business profits increased in restaurants and bars because now the establishments met the needs of both smokers and non-smokers when they catered to the desires of the majority.
4) I don’t see where the argument is….. Alcohol and Smoking…. neither one is HEALTHY. I do admit that from time to time I drink a glass of wine or a Malibu Sunrise, but give me a break. Smoking doesn’t enhance the flavor of what I drink, not everyone that drinks smokes. Raise your hand if you’ve ever been burned by a clumsy smoking drunk!! Not a pleasant experience, I promise, which is one illustration among many that adresses why smoking and drinking don’t mix.
5) Finally, BAR OWNERS serve your food if that is what creates considerable profit in your business. Just ask your customers to step outside and smoke. Supply the outer areas with outdoor ash trays — and be thankful it doesn’t rain 355 of the 365 days per year like it does in other places (ie Washington State). The weather in Nevada really lends itself to asking smokers to step outside, not to mention that it is time the rights of non-smokers were respected and this ban does both.
Comment by E. Jackson — December 20, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
One more thing ……. My husband and I take our kids out to eat at some of the coffee shops that sell $4.95 prime rib dinners. Pay $4.95 or Pay $16.95. Not to mention ….. NEARLY EVERY Restaurant in this town has slot machines. It wouldn’t matter where I took my family to eat they would all be protected by the gaming issue. Nevada is the only state I have seen where Applebees, Olive Garden, TGI Friday’s, etc. have slot machines and are thereby “protected” under the claim that taverns and bars should have been protected under the gaming guidelines of Proposition 5. When I am sitting in the “no smoking” section I still smell the smoke. To look down on families that take their kids into taverns to eat just doesn’t make sense — the way restaurants are structured to gain revenue off of the gaming industry kids and nonsmokers would never leave their homes. WE VOTED — Please let it go and live with it.
Comment by E. Jackson — December 20, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
Hawaii, known for its fresh ocean air and pristine beauty, has implemented one of the nation’s strictest no-smoking laws.
State officials say the new law will protect people from secondhand smoke.
The Smoke-Free Hawaii Law went into effect November 16, banning smoking in all public places such as restaurants, bowling alleys, and malls, as well as airports.
More than 126 million Americans are regularly exposed to smokers’ fumes and tens of thousands die each year as a result, according to a federal study released earlier this year. It cited “overwhelming scientific evidence” that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and other illnesses.
Comment by I am smoke free — December 20, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
It is unbelievable to me that some people actually claim that voters did not understand what Q4 and Q5 were about and voted Q5 out of confusion. The confused ones voted Q4 because of the way it was portrayed in the media. Most people thought Q4 was the real deal and voted for it. Had they realized it was but a “smoke screen” they likely would have voted Q5 and the result would have been much higher in favor of it. For Q5 to get votes, people HAD TO KNOW what it was about. So people should stop misrepresenting the facts! Like it or not WE VOTED and the majority decided!
Comment by Achim Brunette — December 21, 2006 @ 10:12 am
I was so happy to hear about the injunction against the NCIAA. I am a non-smoker but am happy that there is still enough reason in some people’s minds to know when something is just NOT RIGHT. I am very happy with this decision and look forward to what the future holds in regards to this issue. WAY TO GO!! JUSTICE IS STILL ACHIEVABLE EVEN IN THIS AGE OF THE ‘BIG BROTHER’ SYNDROME!
P.S. - Channel 8 KUDOS - you were the first to break this story! This is what makes you #1 in my book!!
Comment by LVNOW — December 21, 2006 @ 10:49 am
Who does this judge think he is? I served in our military to fight against communism and it’s government police state and now this judge is turning Nevada into a government state where the will of the people becomes ignored. Maybe it is time to start fighting this kind of communism right here at home. Bring our troops home from Iraq and have them begin arresting judges who ignore the vote of the will of the people in order to impose their own will.
Comment by mark — December 21, 2006 @ 10:58 am
This whole thing is noting but nonsense. Whats next?????? Ban booze because the DUI rate in Las Vegas esp. is outrageous??? The casinos would fight that in a heartbeat because they cant loosen up their players with booze and get them drunk enough to part with their money if free drinks were outlawed. Thus hurting their bottom line.
Its the mega resorts trying to drive the little guys out of business flat and simple. Thats why the large casinos were exempt citing 15 machines or more license.
Many of the eateries inside many local casinos had to enlarge the smoking areas and most of the time there is a wait for a table in those areas (speaking from experience here) so it appears smokers in large numbers contribute to those restaurants bottom line so why kill the cash cow??? Thats why they made themselves exempt while killing the smaller places.
Since when does a state tell a business owner HOW to run their business if the action is not a felony? And if smoking tobacco becomes a felony then that would mean ANYONE selling tobacco is doing so illegally and merely have a pack of Marlboro’s in your possession is against the law.
By restricting some businesses and NOT all, its discrimination flat and simple.
IT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE OWNERS DISCRETION ON WHETHER HIS BUSINESS WILL BE SMOKING OR NON-SMOKING. This nonsense about keeping children away from second hand smoke is a ruse. Since when do bars allow children in there just loitering around? It always seems to be when a group want to ban or outlaw something they make sure that their language includes the word “children” in the bill. Because they know everyone wants to look out for the welfare of children.
In days past, these Mega resorts which were simply casinos didnt even allow children in them. Now you cant enjoy an evening out without having kids running through, standing by their parents while the parent pulls the slot handle and they even have areas to drop off kids like you drop off your car at the Valet’s. Vegas was and will always be known for its gambling, drinking and ADULT fun city. Since the Mega resorts decided they want the family trade which means more buck in their pockets, its changing and not for the better.
Let the business decide if they want smoking or non-smoking.
That way if his business goes belly up because of their decision they have no one to blame but themselves.
When the state pays their bills then they can dictate who and what he can allow in his establishment so long as it is not breaking any law deamed as being illegal.
Comment by Misty in Las Vegas — December 21, 2006 @ 11:06 am
Ive noticed all the non smokers that will now throw a big twenty in a machine if there is non smoking in bars. Let me be the one to explain…I am a bartender and a huge gambler. The bars arent built on your twenty. They are not giving you cheap food prices on your twenty! Your eating for so cheap and they are existing on thousands of peoples one two and three hundred dollars, and my seven to ten thousand a day twice a week gambling(while smoking)!!! So instead of thinking that your little twenty is what keeps the doors open, while you just drank and ate forty dollars worth of food and beverage, take your little twenty and throw it in your gas tank and go back to California.
Comment by stacey — December 21, 2006 @ 11:19 am
This whole has become a joke, they just told the voters of Nevada that their vote doesn’t matter.
Comment by Richard — December 21, 2006 @ 11:24 am
Clean indoor act my rear. if you want a clean indoor act, include all indoor facilities. i guess Casino workers health doesn’t count as they are just mules to create wealth for the casino owners.
Comment by BJ — December 21, 2006 @ 11:30 am
What good was the election if the vote of the majority isn’t going to be honored. Pesonally I don’t care if people smoke or not. I don’t smoke and as long as it’s not being blown in my face I don’t care if you smoke, but my point is, it was voted on, the voters spoke and what good did it do. What message is this sending to our young people that plan on voting. It goes back to what good is my vote worth.
Comment by Ron — December 21, 2006 @ 11:33 am
Its the Airheads from Ca. that are behind this anti-smoking ban. The judge in this case got cold feet and made the wrong decision.He did not make a fair decision. He gave his view as a non smoker and said smoking is dangerous to a persons health. We who are smokers know that. The judge is there to make a decision on the case,not listen to what he personnaly thinks.I hope tavern owners take this to the Supreme Court, they may win. Also please note all you CA. drivers out there, You don’t own the Nevada roads.
Comment by brian — December 21, 2006 @ 11:50 am
What I think everyone is missing here is our constitutional rights. Once we allow a certain group of people to take rights away from another group of people, one by one, slowly we all lose in the end.
As far as the smoking ban, everyone wants to compare us with California in saying that they never lost revenue. WE ARE NOT CALIFORNIA! I should say NOT yet just to be clear because Californication of Nevada is rapidly gaining on us.
In California when they passed this smoking ban it was accross the board and absolute, every establishment had to ban smoking. In Nevadas case, only small taverns and bars have to ban smoking , NOT CASINOS, how is that a level playing field?
If 76% of Nevadans are non-smokers then they can freely choose to go to Applebees or Chilis(with thier kids), not a 21 or older bar, to eat dinner and sit in a non-smoking section.
Bottom line, our economy was very strong here in Las Vegas 10 years ago, it is still one of the best self-serving economies in America. The people that made it strong are those of us that have been here for the long haul to make it strong. Now all YOU Liberal Californians that have moved to Nevada to enjoy our economy want to bring it to its knees. If you dont like what we have to offer then go back from where you came!
And for you lazy voters out there, did you know that there are only 600,000 registered voters in a city of almost 2 million? And did you know that only 60% of those got up and voted? So how do you feel now knowing that less than 1/5 of the people of Las Vegas decide whats good or bad for the rest of us? Go Vote, Make Your Voice Count.
And for all you ex-Californians that now call Vegas home: Get out of the fast lane, quit bringing your Liberal laws here and pack your belongings and head back in time for California to fall in the ocean!
Comment by Jon B — December 21, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
I am a small business owner, It is a Bowling center, with Gaming, Arcades, And a Full service Snack Bar, this law will more than likely
put me in Bankrupcey, This is My Business I do not force any one to come into it, I have allowed smoking since the day it was built, because bowlers, smoke, drink, eat & gamble, My Problem with this Law is I don’t feel the stste or anyone else has the right to tell me how to run my Business, if you don’t like the smoke don’t come in. The law is Unconstitutional as written because it discriminates..
Comment by J.D. — December 21, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
1. Get reasonable..if someone owns a n eating establishment, THEY should decide if they want smoking. If so and you do not smoke DON’T GO THERE.
2. Casino’s (with all their money) can set up reverse exhaust that will not allow smoke to “get blown in the faces of others”. It would be blown straight up and out of the roof.
3. For the bartenders and waitresses that do not like smoke..FIND A JOB WHERE THERE IS NO SMOKING. They sure like the TIPS..DON’T THEY.
Comment by J. Schiripa — December 21, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
what i do not get is businesses had a choice to be smoke free or not, take IHoP dennys McD’s ect ect all chose to be smoke free. smokers had the choice to go there or not. well what is diffrent with non-smokers having the choice of going to a bar-tavern that allows smoking, its their choice. with this new law, us smokers are being told you cannot go and do what you enjoy in what is suposed to be a free contry. IF smoking is to be banned then it should be banned evenly across the board, not sorry little guy, you only have 15 machines you cant have smoking, but you Mr. 16+ machines can smoke all you want. like someone posted above, major casinos have the movie areas, daycare areas and promote family dining, how does this protect nevada’s children? the smaller bars that are going to be hurt by this do not allow children in their doors.
Comment by G Lee — December 21, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Ice. limes anything you put in your drink needs a food hadlers licence why is it fair for the resort casino and not the tavern owner. I am a smoker and a bartender. If Im going out to gamble and drink. I and Im sure lots of other people will just go to a major casino and not go to the pubs anymore. And that is sad I like the pubs. I think they should have non smoking the choice of the business owner fo a bar pub tavern casino their choice. Oh yea we did have a non smoking casino once and it failed. hmmmm
just my opionon
Comment by s — December 21, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
I’m so tired of the media and sie hard smokers blaming the vote to ban smoking on the ignorance of voters or the influx of Californians. Plain and simple…..smoking kills tousands of Americans each year. We have wised up, and taken a stance against the forced pollution of our luns at your expense!! Once you receive your diagnosis, and are told you have only months to live, maybe then you will understand OUR point of view!!!!!
Comment by PAULA TUCKER — December 21, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
1: VOTERS MAKE MISTAKE’S,, and if ya dont think thats true look at who our president has been for the last 6 years.
2: A judge has to decide if its unfair to let casinos have smoking and not small bars, thats un-fair in itself.
3: If I owned a small bar I would NOT complie with the smoking ban.
4: I will no longer spend my money in bars that do not allow smoking.
5: Can we please just ban kids and keep the smoking,, PLEASE.
Davyo
Comment by Davyo — December 21, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Regardless of whether you are for or against the ban, just as we have the right to vote, we have the right to file lawsuits against it. I’m a non-smoker, but I feel that #4 was way too harsh. Ban smoking in bars, taverns and throw in “for our children”??? Since when does anyone take their kids to bars or taverns? When are they allowed in there? This is why we have smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. I have never been in a non-smoking section of a restaurant where I have smelled someone’s smoke. I think that if anything they should implement smoking/non-smoking sections for bars. Why should smokers suffer because non smokers dont smoke? Just like us, they have rights. Either that, or make it universal. but this wont happen because our casinos and tourists are this city’s livelyhood. And what about the poor casino workers that don’t smoke but have no choice but to inhale it?
Here is the problem with our country, our county for that matter, people need to vote. I guarantee that if everyone that is complaining, arguing, fighting over this issue voted, there would have been a different outcome to begin with. We probably wouldn’t even be having this discussion.The number of voters was very saddening.
Comment by Cher — December 21, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
It is so sad that smokers don’t realize that non-smokers don’t go to bars and pubs because we are forced to be around smoke. 75% of the population now become potential customers….pub owners have nothing to worry about. And smokers have nothing to worry about, I’ll be happy to hold any video poker machine they are playing while they go outside to smoke - and thanks in advance for following the new law.
Comment by RZ — December 21, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
look…if you want to smoke, GO OUTSIDE! I think it’s ridiculous to hear how rights are being taken away from smokers. what about the rights of non-smokers? this is not about anyones rights, but about what the people choose and in this case it’s NO SMOKING, and I can’t agree more. I’m so glad that I could finally walk into 7-11 without smelling like I smoked a carton. We’re not telling you not to smoke, but for pete’s sake, take it outside! Thank-you #5.
Comment by Smoking STINKS!!!! — December 21, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
I am a non-smoker, and I frequent a local bar/pub. Does the smoke bother me? NO! I have friends that go in there and they don’t smoke either. Does the smoke bother them? NO! One of the bartenders is the owners son, and he himself doesn’t smoke. Does he tell the smokers not to smoke? NO! I go there after a long day of work and have a drink or two to wind down before going home.
I’ve lived here for 40 years and seen the growth, seen the large casinos slowly squeezing out the smaller bar/pubs, and it seems that the only ones left are the ones that have a loyal, local followings of the neighborhood. Leave them alone.
If you have kids, what are you doing taking them into a bar/pub anyway. Isn’t the law no one under 21? It’s common knowledge that bars serve alcohol, and people smoke in them…..if you don’t like it, don’t go in.
What part of that don’t you understand?
Comment by dwhite — December 21, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
WHO CARES ABOUT YOU SMOKERS. CLEAN INDOOR ACT. what more do i have to say. we don’t want to breath in your smoke. YOU GET OUT. Your smoking is unconstitutional.
Comment by Paul — December 21, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
If this was really an air quality issue, why were the casinos left out?
When a referendum is placed on a ballot to outlaw smoking in establishments that historically involve smoking, who could not guess the outcome where only 22% of the voters smoke?
I am a non-smoker. Never smoked, never will. No one in my family smokes. I voted no. Why is the “right” of people to eat in smoke free places more important than the right of a smoker to eat and smoke during a dinner?
“Rights” do not infringe on another being. There are no “rights” in this issue. It is basically a bunch of non-smokers telling another bunch of people that they are second class citizens. The smokers and the places they have called home for so long have to change to accomodate the off chance a non-smoker might visit to have a meal one day out of the year. It is a load of c….
Our society is market driven. Business must react to their market to remain viable. If the demand was so outrageous for non-smoking facilites, why did the market not respond? Point out to me the wildly successful bars and casinos that are currently non-smoking? There are none.
To legislate this is inane. More people die from other cuases than smoke. Cars kill - how about a vote to outlaw them in places people walk? Carbon monoxide kills - how about a vote to eliminate anything that produces carbon monoxide?
I do not take my kids to a tavern to eat. I do go to Applebee’s, Chili’s and other places that have smoking and non-smoking sections. I frequent places that are smoke-free. Heck maybe it is a good idea to stay home even and save the dollars. But I do not want to tell you what to do with your life.
Lobbing a softball (no-smoking) to a an audience of 80% non-smokers- that ball will be hit out of the park everytime.
Imagine if the immigration issue came to a popular vote the will of the people would be immediately challenged in the courts. Many of you who voted to outlaw smoking would now being sitting on the other side of the fence looking for the court to stop what you think is wrong. For the record, I support keeping who is here now here. Prevent ing more from coming until we get a good handle of what is really happening at our border and the economic impact in the communities affected.
To close - to veil this a clean air would not have left out the big casinos. There are no “rights” in this issue. We do not have the god given ability to decide what citizenry is superior. The market should make this decision at the individual business owner location - not at the ballot box in a slam dunk referendum. We should probabbly outlaw most facets of our life - including criminalizing the kid who pees in the pool while i am swimming as well. My two cents.
Comment by Tim Kuptz — December 21, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
I for one agree that smoking does not belong in places where there is food. So we have non-smoking and smoking parts of restaraunts, the smoke does not stay just on the smoking part!
I found it even more disgusting to have smokers using plates as ash trays.
If you want to smoke, GO OUTSIDE!
Comment by Teresa — December 21, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
Give me a break people. Are we forgetting why Vegas is Vegas? I am a non smoker who agrees that tobacco is deadly. I am also a native of Las Vegas and very well traveled. We were not coined “Sin City” for nothing. We are a tourisim city, dependant on tourist with the dreams of being wild and free and experiencing things without discrimination. This is what sets us apart from the rest of the world and other gaming countries and cities. This is why unemployment is low and we still do not pay state tax. We can not dictate what business owners do. The bigger issue here is the liberties that are being taken away from us by the bureaucrats. When did Vegas become conservative? I am afraid of what’s next!
Comment by Naomi — December 21, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
What is all the excitement about? Finally the rights of us non-smokers has been taken into account. If you choose to pollute your body with the worlds most disgusting habit, so be it. As for me, I choose that you don’t pollute my lungs, stink up my clothes and force me to waste water by having to shower each time I go out to dinner. We are having a water shortage you know! The people by voting, a consitutional right, have spoken and it’s about time that smokers realize that we don’t want to be part of their self destruction. If I decide to poison myself with arsenic, should I give everyone around me a dose of it too? There is downside to the ban, when smokers are forced to go outside to smoke it will mean more cigarette butts on the streets. Smokers tend to show a lack of courtesy towards others and the environment. How many times has a flaming butt come flying out a car window towards your? I say bully to the people who voted for the ban, 54% of us can’t all be wrong.
Comment by Reid — December 21, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
YES! I was starting to wonder why I bothered to vote. Give Herndon credit for at least having 0ne gonad.
Comment by R.Daniels — December 21, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
I believe there should be some places, such as taverns and casinos, that allow both smoking and food service. The legislation and ban of smoking to this extent is WAY too much. I feel that the majority of voters were not aware of the consequences of Question 5 as far as not allowing the local pub to have food AND smoking.
Comment by Kat — December 21, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
I think it should be up to the owner of the establishment to make it non-smoking or smoking. It is really funny when you go to a restaurant and they ask you smoking or non and here comes the hypocrite who doesn’t smoke and says first available. They are the ones who complain about the smoke but they will sit in smoking sections to eat first. Go back to California and leave Las Vegas residents alone. You make the housing market go sky rocketing and rent to trailer trash so go back to where you came from and leave us alone. I do smoke and I love the old ladies that sit next to me while I am smoking and then complain about it. I didn’t invite you to sit next to me so LEAVE.
Comment by Helena Cusumano — December 21, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
This is unlawful!!!… It takes away our rights!!!… There are plenty of non smoking places in this city!!!!.,
Comment by DeeDee Harter — December 21, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
A ban without penalties. What is the point. I have been praying for the day I could have a drink and gamble without choking. I am not only offended by the smoke but highly allergic to it. I am a drinker and a gambler. When is it my turn to enjoy? I would like to know who I file a lawsuit against if I come down with complications resulting from the smoking ban that isn’t enforced.
Comment by Deanna Workman — December 21, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
It is the right of the smoker to smoke, only if they do not harm other people. Just like you can drink, but you can’t drink and drive because you can harm someone, the same is true for smoking. Secondhand smoke causes harm, so you don’t have the right to smoke on other people. We deserve to breathe clean air, isn’t that why they have laws to protect people from dangerous chemicals that can effect the quality of clean indoor air.
Comment by Alice — December 21, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
Using our children: Once again the government is using our children to pass laws. This law is so stupid for a state that has gambling; has anyone tested the air outside? I bet it would be worse than second hand smoke. I want to see the outside air results. This is Vegas, Sin City; what goes on here stays in here; The only reason for the ban is because Vegas is not Vegas no more; Californians,Utahians and anyone else is Vegas. If you are so worried about your childrens’ health; KEEP THEM OUT OF BARS!! Go buy them a happy meal; or pizza. Don’t children walk through casinos to go to the movies or bowling alleys? Won’t they be exposed to second hand smoke?
The biggest losers are the thousands of people that will lose their jobs; that is what you voted for; I hope you all are happy to put them out of work at Christmas; way to go and pat yourself on the back. I think we should piss off the casinos and make them non smoking; hmmm bet they would win!!
Comment by Mary McCain — December 21, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
To the reader that thinks all casinos should go non-smoking:
What are you thinking…..That is the only economy that our state has. How many factories, plants, etc. do you see in Nevada. Our state’s revenue is “gambling”. I guess you won’t mind when your taxes go up to support our state. And then they can slap us with a state income tax on top of that. People need to “WAKE UP” and realize this is the industry that supports this state. If you don’t like it LEAVE….I personally quit smoking over 3 years ago and don’t particularly care to be around smoking….BUT I have the right to or not to go into places where their is second hand smoke. If you don’t want to be around smoke, then stay at home. You can cook your meals there and you will be much healthier all the way around. This is still America and we should have the right to smoke or not smoke. I agree that the questions 4 & 5 were confusing and misleading. Tell the public that if revenues drop that they will be footing the bill and then see just how important it becomes to them. For the person that worked in the Casino….you choose that job. There are other jobs out there that do not allow smoking in their buildings. Pick one. I do believe that when you took that job you were well aware that you would be around smokers. Bottom line….let the businesses make their own choice and we have our own choice as to whether we want to go to that establishment.
This is suppose to be a “Free Country”.
Comment by Martin — December 21, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
Congatulations to Nevada! In just a few short months you have literally crippled the fastest growing economy in the nation. Small businesses like the taverns are now forced to make drastic economic measures that will effect
all of you whether you patronize taverns or not. Enjoy your new state tax since the gaming revenues that are paid by the taverns are no longer availalble.Enjoy your unemployment,since many will lose their jobs. This is not speculative,it is a fact. Enjoy your higher prices at restaurants since the minimum wage will always be higher than the federal rate. Enjoy your health crisis since small business cannot take advantage of the health laws you voted on and can no longer afford health insurance for employees they have left. I appreciate the fact that you voted for a smoke free enviornment,but you made exemptions for casinos which have succeeded in burying the small business owners to the point of closure. Some taverns may not serve food and continue with their gaming which once again defeats the purpose of the ban and puts drinkers on the road with no food in their stomach.So,enjoy your new public safety issue as well.Many of you in this forum have been defending you intelligence and that you understood question 5,I beg to differ. Do your self a favor on any or all future initiatives. Understand that when these bills are conceived,they are designed to benefit someone and totally screw someone else. You have succeeded in both when you consider the aforementioned.
Comment by bob — December 21, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
just another step closer to Hitler’s enlightened society…what freedom goes next?
Comment by roncolquitt — December 21, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
I have the right to breathe clean air. I should have the right to not be subsidizing the health care costs of smoking and obese Americans. Without this law I cannot go into 7-11 without smelling like an ashtray. I cannot go to the grocery store without breathing the carinogens from the slot machine area. I cannot eat out without having a reaction to smoke.
It is a decided minority (20%) who want to continue commiting suicide on the “installment plan” by smoking. Instead of smoking, use a handgun. It is faster and you do not have to impact my health in the process.
It is too bad small taverns got caught in the crossfire, but there were just too many common places that had smoking because of gambling. I can tell you that I will be going out more because of more non-smoking options.
The best ad during the election regarding this issue was one in which a man was entering a public pool and was asked, “Peeing or non-peeing?”. That is the bottom line with so called non-smoking areas of various establishments. Try as one may, there is simply no way to draw an invisible line which safely separates the masochistic and sadistic chronic smoker from individuals who chose not to lead that lifestyle. In the short and long run it is cheaper and better to err on the side of being healthy, so quit your whining and get a life. Or at least, let me have mine.
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
This way overdue. Prior to this ruling, the slot machines at store entrances forced citizens to walk through a haze of smoke to purchase food. That’s shameful.
Comment by Carol — December 21, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
HAHAHA I cant wait to see someone “challenge” this toothless tiger law..
No criminal penalties, No one to enforce it, No money to enforce it.. this is going to be funny.
Worst yet, they are going to “educate” (read brainwash) us into conforming.. lol
Can you see it now
Bartender: Hey put that cigarette out!
Smoker: Or what? You’ll give me a really dirty look or something?
lololol
In the end this was a victory for smokers of which I am proud to be.
Comment by Denise Smoker — December 21, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
Can I be the first to say..
I DONT CARE ABOUT NON SMOKERS!
I seriously do not.
Years and years I tried to be a polite smoker. What did it get me? Kicked outside.
I have friends who don’t smoke.. the smoke doesn’t bother them? They still go out to bars and clubs.. isn’t it funny. Perhaps its because THEY are not from Kalifornia.. and were not brainwashed.
No more.. ask me not to smoke, its a reason to light one up.
Playing nice does not work anymore.
Comment by Mike Anderson — December 21, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
This is a good day for the Non-Smoker and the people who like going out and not returning home smelling like an Ashtray.
Comment by Kevin Frederick — December 21, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Why in this day with the knowlegde we now have do we have to pass laws banning smoking. I was a smoker , a heavy smother. I knew if I kept smoking it would kill me. Ok it takes will power and it is very hard to stop but believe me if I can do it you can. The people have voted. No judge should be able to change that vote by saying there would be no criminal charges against violators of this law. Why pass it then? Why vote if judges are going to change what the people voted for. Just stop smoking and we will not have to vote on such laws. thanks
Comment by tony — December 21, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
It is my belief that 54% of Nevada voters wanted to cast their vote with their wallet. The 54% of the voters that voted for Q5 said I want to go out to eat and drink in a smoke free establishment. I quit smoking over 10 years ago after contant bouts with chronic broncitus and COPD I quit over the health aspect. Moving to Nevada I found smoking in the grocery store and Kmart and why, just to get a few extra bucks on the slot machines, but consider the smoking at the grocery, department stores the cigarett smoke wafts and is present on you food and clothing purchases .
I voted no on both questions I would have been in favor of keeping the smoking at bars but eliminate it from the retail stores with the slot machines.
The pro-smoking platform seems to forget that there are people out there are excluded from events because smoking is present; I can attest to that because if I am in a smoke filled room in the next few days I will have some respitory problems.
with that said now maybe I’ll take up bowling again now that the alleys are smoke free
Q4 & Q5 are public health issues not the Californication of Nevada
as we grow, as a community we need to co-exist I think the judge made a good decision in making the violations a civil penality not criminal but in the end were just at the beginning.
Comment by TP DAve — December 21, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
AS A BAROWNER, I love the decision. The 70-some percent that are non smokers are more likely to visit my establishment. The Non-Smoker will not have to worry about changing their shirts everytime they visit my bar. My Non-Smoking bartenders will be able to go to work and not breath in second hand.
Comment by HAPPY BAR OWNER — December 21, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Ok. let’s settle this silly-a** bickering over “rights”.
When does one person’s rights infringe on someone else’s?
Usually, never.
In this case; we are talking about health issues.
Due to my work schedule, by the time I get off of work, Applebees is closed, Chili’s is closed. Most non-smoking restaurants are closed.
Now, as far as smoke not bothering anyone, try walking through it when you have Asthma. It’s like being choked to death; not to mention the stench is nauseating.
So, I am basically being told to starve if I don’t want to breath smoke? No one has the right to tell me that. You smokers are mad because we are telling you not to smoke or to simply go outside only in pubs and taverns.
The smokers could go to a casino; they have food, gaming, alcohol and they are exempt from the ban. It’s like going to a pub/tavern.
You still have cars to smoke in and your homes. Which, is interesting as I can’t understand why smokers hang their cigarette out the window while they drive.
It is their smoke, and they want to smoke, keep the windows up and they can get more smoke out of their cigarette.
Personally, I don’t care if you smoke, but consider this….and light one up while you’re reading……….
Nicotine is a poison. It is a “planet killer”; need I say more? If it is used to “kill” something, I’d say it isn’t too good for you.
Tar is used on rooftops and roadways. Would you like to eat a bucket of tar with those chicken wings? Or, you want a bowl of tar to dunk them in?
I can’t even stand the smell of tar without wanting to vomit. And you smokers seem to want to take it in in big puffs.
What you do to yourself is one thing, but wanting to poison someone else cause you think it’s funny to blow smoke in their face is another. It isn’t funny or cute, cause you think us “smoke nazis” are faking a cough. Some of us gag, almost to the point of vomiting when we have to go through that “smoke”.
You talk about taking kids to a tavern. That is no worse than taking them to a full casino to eat at a buffet. Some taverns have separate entrances, casinos don’t. Sorry, just stating facts.
I would not want to take a child to a restaurant in a casino. The cocktail waitresses wear next to nothing, the environment is rowdy.
A tavern’s employees (like Timbers) are more clothed, the atmosphere is calmer, particularly late at night. Most “family” restaurants close at 10p or 11p. What about me? I work 3p to 11p.
I might want to take my child out as a treat to them; and after working 8 hours, some of us don’t feel like cooking a full meal. Isn’t that why you’re going to the tavern? To wind down and relax? Maybe I want to as well.
How about pregnant women who smoke? Or, a pregnant woman who goes out to a pub/tavern for a 3am snack? Applebees isn’t open; Fazoli’s isn’t; neither is Chili’s.
Denny’s? Maybe it’s a little too far to travel; not to mention perhaps people want to walk down to the local tavern. I have two close enough to walk where I live. One takes me 5 minutes to walk down to.
As far as those “non-smoking” sections, consider this–smoke goes into the air. Hence air “pollution”?
It doesn’t matter if an establishment has a non-smoking section; the smoke will go over there because it is blown in the air.
Unless the non-smoking section is in a different building with separate ventilation; the people in the non-smoking section still has to breath smoke.
As far as saving my money and eating at home; that’s not anyone’s business but mine.
Why don’t you smokers buy a 6-pack of your brew, go home, prop up in the recliner; light-up and chug down?
How did you like that suggestion? Don’t? Well, I don’t want to eat somewhere else, either, or be told to.
Also, if everyone went home to eat–your pub/tavern would lay off employees cause of declining revenue, and eventually they would be forced to close since they would have no revenue.
With that said, it’s simple. Don’t light up in public. Nor should you drink alcohol and drive. If that’s what you’re doing when you go to a pub, you’re a criminal. More than one 8oz glass of beer is enough to be legally drunk.
You go to a pub, drink down a few beers and then drive home; not being told you can’t smoke is the least of your worries. You’re going to jail for DUI. Won’t have money for smokes then.
You can smoke outside after you get off of work. Go to PT’s, have a cheeseburger, gamble, have pepsi, go to AM/PM get your beer and go home and drink.
Consider someone other than yourself for once. How would you feel if by drinking at a tavern and climbing behind the wheel of the car you caused an accident that killed your spouse and child, who were on their way home to meet you?
You might not care, since you’re mad you couldn’t light up at PT’s and chugged down your beer; and had a few too many beers to console yourself.
That’s something to think about while you’re lighting up.
Merry Christmas and have a safe New Year.
Comment by Marie — December 21, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
I think it is terrible that big casinos can get away with having food courts right next to slot machines and people smoking. that is unfair to local businesses. Also why would someone want to bring a child to a bar where there is smoking. I think the whole issue is very slanted.
Comment by Joanne Jass — December 21, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Amazing to me the ignorance of people in this town. Smoker / Non-smoker….who cares. Personally, I don’t smoke, but I think this law is as Judge Douglas Herndon said, “Filled with problems.” This was put together very hastily. The law makers were in such a hurry to put something together in time to get it on the ballot that they took little more than speculated interest into the economic impact. Should the tavern owners decide to close kitchens, thousands of your fellow Las Vegans are going to be out of jobs, all in the name of clean air. That’s BS. How would you like to loose your job because someone put together a ballot question that has no structure or definition? There was a comprimise here and it could have been easily arranged had the lawmakers and health department lobbyists not been so ignorant.
Personally I hope the taverns close their kitchens just to spite the voters that passed this initiative. They make more money on gaming revenues anyway. I also hope that the remaining eateries raise their food prices through the roof. That way you can pay (literaly) for your clean air.
Way to go Vegas!!!
Comment by Papakega — December 21, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
Talk about playing both sides of the fence. Approving what the voters voted on and passed without criminal penalties! What a joke! Judge Douglas Herndon’s afraid to anger either side. Afraid to do what’s right by the voters. A judge we should not put back on the bench. Both sides on this issue should remember the name Judge Douglas Herndon and vote him out in the next election. Next time it may be an issue you smokers want him to stand behind that he doesn’t. I was willing to accept the majority vote on the outcome of this issue. It will benifit me greatly if it is enforced. There should be criminal penalties put on the establishments and the people who break the law. A law that we the people of Las Vegas voted on and passed. Your hurting everyone in the room when you smoke. Those who know it and those who don’t. I grew up in a home where both parents smoked. My husband smoked. I never minded if someone smoked even though I never smoked myself. I was 26 before we learned how their smoking had harmed me. I look forward to going to places I couldn’t before because of the smoke. My father died an offal death from smoke related throat cancer and then lung cancer. To all of you who refuse this law may you go through what he did. He didn’t know what laid in his future. In 2006 you should all know better. If you want to shorten your life and die a painful offal death go for it! But don’t impose it on those around you. Go outside and smoke where all the other addicts go. God Bless all of you who respect the rights of everyone by not smoking where you can harm others. God Bless all the establishments who are not afraid to stand up for the new law and enforce it. May they find that their business will prosper even better. God Bless America!
Comment by Susan Fowler — December 21, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
As a non-smoker I’m grateful that finally the tables have turned. The smokers are complaining? Will they fall ill being surrounded with clean air? For all the times I’ve had to hold my breath as I walk by, or move to a different table at a restaurant, or change my clothes & shower after i get off work so I don’t smell like cigarettes, finally, I feel this measure is beyond fair. I can’t believe smokers are up in arms about this - they apparently take pride in endagering their own health as well as others?
Comment by Danielle — December 21, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
It`s Time to fight back when people start hearing about this and we have less people comming hear then what do we do ? i donot go where i`am not wanted i donot spend my money there ! This new law has change me if iam out doors i no longer care what a non smoker says if i eat out no more tips . last election no id needed what a joke so can you say it passed i donot think so??
Comment by Stephen Gouveia — December 21, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
“Also, if everyone went home to eat–your pub/tavern would lay off employees cause of declining revenue, and eventually they would be forced to close since they would have no revenue.”
The only part of that that is true is the laying off employees part, however taverns wouldn’t close seeing that the gaming portion of the income far surpasses that of the food portion. Plus, if we shut our food portion down we lose all that overhead and your out a place to eat. We keep those open for your enjoyment. For everyones enjoyment, smokers and non smokers alike. If you don’t like it, go eat somewhere where gaming isn’t their main source of income. Which limits your to uhm, pretty much anywhere that doesn’t have gaming.
Comment by Steve — December 21, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
I am soooo Happy!!!
I can finally play a game of pool or darts and enjoy sports at my local pub without choking on all the smoke!!!! Hurray!1
Comment by Parry — December 21, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
I wonder how many idiots voted yes on five because they didn’t realize the choice wasn’t 4 OR 5, and that they could have voted no on both.
Business establishments should be allowed to decide smoking/nonsmoking issues on their own. Customers can choose which businesses to patronize. Protecting children? Just don’t allow them in establishments that permit smoking. Protecting employees? They are employees, not slaves, they can look for work where they choose.
Comment by Chris C. — December 21, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
I agree completely with the Judge’s decision. There is no possible reason to justify allowing smokers the right to destroy other peoples health. Imagine all the people dying right now due to 2nd hand smoke who could of lived 1,5 even 10 years more if it wasn’t for smokers putting their selfish desires above other peoples health. Everytime a smoker lights up around a non-smoker that smoker is showing that they don’t care that the non-smoker is going to lose moments of their life because of their habit. It’s so selfish!!! So Selfish and smokers still fight their cause without any shame!
Comment by John — December 21, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Fortunately this will KILL the graft associated with illegal diversion of funds to the M. Scholarship Fund as it was never sent to the people designed to receive it. Now, Clark County has start looking into the illegal issue as the schools can not continue to grow with the illegal population funded by smokers.
In two years there will be no rights so let the non smokers who won for the moment start to worry.
Comment by stu mervin — December 21, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
OMG non smokers need to get out of your glass houses! Why are your rights more important than the smokers? Well for one..you voted. I am a smoker and I could careless either way, however, if you don’t like it you can stay home and to the one woman towards the top, cook at home, I don’t think she will starve because Applebee’s is closed when she gets off of work! If it bothered her that much, she would cook at home. Smoking in a bar should be allowed since kids are not, however, if all of the smokers did not vote or did not read up on what they voted on, then they should not complain.
Comment by Jennifer — December 21, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
Are we forgetting something?
We are a democracy. Which means we rule “by the people”. Ok, focus on this. This alone, there is no other issue here.
As a democracy, we the people vote on issues placed before us. If there is an issue that affects our way of life, it is brought to us in the form of a referendum to vote on. Such as in this case. It is our responsibility to go and decide the fate of the issue—pass, don’t pass. Quite simple, yet always forgotten when said issue is passed and people don’t like it.
Majority rules, doesn’t matter how “slim” or “overwhleming” the majority it. So long as it is over 51%; the majority has spoken. This is the system we so value when it goes our way, and are so quick to bash when it doesn’t.
The governement is not banning smoking in pubs/taverns; we the people are saying no smoking in the places. It is the government’s role to inforce what we put into motion by a vote of the majority of the people by vote.
“Big Brother” did not inact this law.The people went to the polls and said, this is what we want.
The majority said this is what they wanted. No one has the right to tell people where to eat, where they can and can’t take thir children. This is not a morals debate.
There is no evidence that businesses are going to lose revenue, kitchens in pubs will close or more DUI accidents are going to occur as a result of this law being passed. This is all speculation.
Is doesn’t matter how many registered voters there are. Just that the majority of those who went to vote, voted on the issue to pass.
I am a registered voter, I support the ban, but I didn’t go to the polls. It doesn’t matter why they didn’t. We known this happens, during a non-election year, there is a low voter turn out. There is no law to force those registered to head to the polls.
I have never seen a group of people bicker over something so pointless. What’s done is done. It was brought before the people and was “voted” in.
Perhaps the reason for the low turn out is that some of us hate being overruled by a judge after we have stood in long lines to state this is what we want.
Now, big government did not just inact this law.
It was left up to the people.
The people went to the polls, they voiced their intentions.
Had the judge not upheld the ban; he would have been slapping democracy in the face and endangering our right to vote.
Everyone talks about the government wanting to interfere in our lives.
Then, those who oppose the ban should take it up with those who voted it in.
No name calling, no saying government is taking over our lives.
This is why we vote, to have control in our lives. To have the right to say this is what we want, no this isn’t what we want.
And, because some people out there can not accept that, a judge is called into a discussion that was already decided.
That is why I don’t go to the polls anymore.
By this issue going before a judge; I have been told that my vote doesn’t count for anything.
Now, that is big government telling you what to do. Vote, and if someone doesn’t like it, your vote will be thrown out or taken up for further discussion.
Comment by Stopped Voting — December 21, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
I agree with the voters. Yahoooo its about time. Clean air. Don’t get me wrong I use to smoke but even I hated smelling cigarettes while I ate. There are alot of restuarants I refused to go into because of that.
So Yaaahooo.
Comment by Rhonda Riley — December 21, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
I think that it is interesting that you can take your child to a bar to eat(and you drink)and drive that child home after you have “had a few”.God forbid that you would have to smell smoke in the mean time.Not to mention how unfair it is for casino”s to still allow smoking in any part of there estabishment. I just can’t believe that we don’t have more important thing’s to focus on than smoking. Like, let’s make people start walking because there is to much polution.Oh yea, dont forget the fat people. Let’s make them all go on a diet cause they make me sick to look at them.People need to get a grip.If you dont like it here get out. We live in a bowl of polution here.What clean air???It ain’t In Vegas Baby. Freedom? For whom ? Not for anyone here.Sad but true.Let’s clean up the stripper’s and the homeless.Let’s make our children safer from sexual predator’s.Let’s find a real problem to solve. Sorry but this is Vegas.
Comment by Mel Kollmar — December 21, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
Hey, Las Vegas has good climate and clean air. Lets move there and change that. Bring my bit suv to vegas and polute the air. Hey, Vegas allows smoking in restaurants. Lets change that. I don’t want to smoke so no one should. hey, my kids are hell on wheels. Lets take them out in public and annoy everyone and don’t dare give me dirty looks.
Hey, Las Vegas is a desert. Lets change that. I will move there and plant grass and trees. Help to raise the humidity. I want to talk on my cell phone. Why should you get upset if I am not paying attention to what I am doing - what? Just because I went through two stop sign and one red light?
I will move to a new place and then change everything about it so it becomes like the place I moved from. Oh yes. I will not register my car here because its cheaper where I came from. I will not learn the language because its too much work. You must put everything into my language. Take the drivers test in 31 different languages! People, do you come from another planet or are you all just plain nuts. Go back to your nut houses and leave us the way we were and the way we were was why you wanted to come here in the first place.
Comment by Pat — December 21, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
Happy Days! I’ve waited two decades for this ban. Too bad casinos are exempt. But at least this is a right step forward.
As for the crying smokers: note how your addiction leaves you without compassion for those in whom you cause suffering.
There is no such thing as a “polite smoker,” unless he is smoking in the privacy of his own space. Think about how right it is to allow all people to breathe clean air. Then perhaps you will see some value in your present suffering.
Comment by William Wraith — December 21, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
I have read all of the posts in regard to this matter and yes i am a smoker and am a bit offended by myself not being able to smoke while i bowl or while i shoot a game of pool. I don’t smoke while i eat about 99% of the time and i don’t understand why everyone is so worried about banning it in bars/pubs but it’s ok to smoke in a large casinos that have restaraunts adjacent to the gaming area where someones grandma puffs her brains out and blows smoke at the people eating there food because she can’t smoke in her local bar/pub anymore. Last time i checked bars/pubs are for adults only 21 and older so why ban smoking somewhere kids are not supposed to be. I agree with one of the posts i read about targeting all California,Idaho,Utah,Arizona license plates to comply with state laws to convert those within 30 days of living here. So they are basically screwing the state out of those registration fee’s because they say they live in those other states more than in ours. I hope all of you non-smokers don’t sit next to me in any casino i may be in because i will target you with my smoke since i can’t drink smoke and gamble in my local bar anymore. And the more you complain the more i will smoke. I say that all smokers need to band togehter and not patronize the places that do not allow smoking. Well thanks alot and i look forward to seeing you in the unemployment line.
Comment by robert — December 21, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
THIS WHOLE THING IS A JOKE! First off, my wife doesn’t smoke, and i do. I do not smoke in the house out of respect for her. I do smoke in my garage and she respects that for me. She does go out to bars with all of our friends to eat and see bands etc. and it doesn’t bother her in the least to go to a smoking bar. My big question is why can’t all the bars that wanted no smoking become none smoking bars to cater to all of the non-smokers and leave the rest of us alone. Parents, keep your kids out of bars, take them to denny’s or something. If they had non-smoking bars, then people who don’t smoke could work there, and people that do smoke go work at a smoking bar. I know some bar owners and i believe they would make a killing on non-smoking bars, and visa versa. I would go out to a non smoking bar if my freinds chose to go there and deal with it, just like they may have to do at a smoking bar. I am also not buying the numbers the news say about non smokers. 70 + %??? I live a very very active night life, and almost everyone i see is smoking. I work in the automotive industry, and 95% of all of us smoke. I know a ton of people in this town in all kinds of trades, and lifestyles, and i can only think of a couple that don’t smoke. So get real on those numbers. I agree fully with no smoking at k-mart, corner stores, grocery stores etc. But leave a bar a bar, and keep your children out of them. As far as none-smokers go, better not give me a hard time for smoking around you outside of the bars because i won’t be in the mood to hear you. Shame on vegas for letting its neighboring states residents whom just moved here ruin the economy they JUST moved here for. They will see, now that lots of them will be out of work, and have loss of clients at there new founded buisness ventures, they will have to sell there over priced homes, and move back. Shame Shame Shame
Vegas is no longer “sin city”, just another california city with lots of lights, and lots of new confused resident’s.
Shaggy
Comment by shaggy — December 21, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
I agree there should be a smoking ban everywhere, for health reasons.
To enforce the smoking ban there should some sort of punishment for smokers that will break the smoking ban, jail time and a heavy fine.
I wish the Indian Casinos everywhere had a smoking ban also, for health reasons.
Maybe some day congress will change all that and make the Indian Casinos everywhere ban smoking, for health reasons.
Comment by Marvin Young — December 21, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
I guess I must be stupid. So if a bar decides to stop serving food but continues to allows smoking, that is a win for the anti smokers, american lung association and cancer society. If smoking is unhealthy, it should be equally unhealthy in all bars, all restaurants, all casinos, etc not just in ones with special licenses or that don’t serve food.
The casinos sold out the taverns in this one. I for one would love to lead the campaign for all casino workers to sue their employers for ‘protective rights’. If casinos think clean air in bars is such a good thing, it must be good for them also. The next round will be aimed at the casinos.
People forget that the thousands of thousands of slots in bars, convenience stores and grocery stores are paying huge taxes to keep the state income taxes away and keep the sale tax low. What are you going to do when the tax revenue drops and public services, parks, museums, etc start closing up.
I hope you are still celebrating.
I don’t smoke but I am smart enough to understand where my livelihood comes from.
Comment by Dumb Founded — December 21, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
I own several bars in Las Vegas and it makes me sick to hear other bar owners saying they are going to lay off all of their restaurant employees during the holidays. I have no intention of firing anyone. I just hope the none smokers that are speaking up so much now are willing to make up the difference in lost revenue from the smokers. If so, we are all happy. If not, the employees will get laid off anyway due to lack of business but not because of this new law. Shortly, everyone will know what bars serve food and which ones allow smoking. Most bars food was so terrible anyway it won’t be much of a loss. Those who do it right like Timbers, Outside Inn and Big Dogs should benefit. This is Vegas….it’s all a gamble.
Comment by No Heart — December 21, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
Amen to –>Posted by: Pat | December 21, 2006 at 06:08 PM .. You hit the nail on the head!! All you non-smokers move to a deserted island somewhere and breath all the fresh air you want .. oh and take ya kids with ya.. leave Vegas alone will ya??
Comment by Paula — December 21, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
My favorite comment I have read so far on here is from a person “claiming” to be a bar owner in favor of the smoking ban. I would tend to think that is not true, I dont think there is one “real” bar owner in this state that is happy about the smoking ban. So when you read that comment on here from that person “claiming to be a bar owner” in favor of the smoking ban you should also remember that people do lie on the internet.
No bar owner in his or hers right mind would be in favor of the smoking ban. And if by some slim chance that person really did own a bar and hated the smoke, they could have made their bar non-smoking years ago, there has never been a law saying you must allow smoking in a bar.
I really hate it when people lie.
On another point, Im a smoker and I dont like kids, I will not be going to any non-smoking bars.
And can we ban kids ?
Davyo
Comment by Davyo — December 21, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
As I read these blogs I find that certain people have entirely missed the issue. And, that is what has led to this discussion.
We live in a democracy. A vote by the people.
People who cared about the issue voted, either for or against; if you didn’t vote, perhaps, you should have and it might have changed the outcome.
Whatever the reason you didn’t; there is no way to go back now and change that.
If you voted against the the issue, there were more for the initiative than against; as we go by “majority rules”.
It’s not perfect, no form of government is perfect. Some are however, decidely better than others.
This is our government; rule by the people.
As far as the person’s comment regarding me cooking at home, and that I wouldn’t starve because Applebee’s is closed……those comments are immature at best.
Perhaps that person should have taken the whole comment at it’s value of what was being expressed and not pick out one thing and act out on it.
This isn’t about me. I don’t live in a glass house and as I stated I don’t have to cook. That is MY right to make that decision.
It is also wonderful how people use someone else’s comment to further their own comments.
I don’t believe non-smoking in taverns is going to be a problem.
And I like bar food, tastes great and I want to enjoy it without smelling smoke or smelling like smoke when I leave.
I believe that we all have the right to OUR opinions.
Some people are saying to stay away from the “bars & grills”; the last time I checked, Chili’s was a “bar & grill”. Same as Applebees.
But no one has the right to go and attack someone else’s post or opinion.
That is not useful, nor is it mature, responsible, or useful.
I notice how everyone (either smoker/non-smoker) viciously attack each other.
Is a tar & nicotine ridden item, worth that?
Strange how no one commented about that fact? No one thought to copy it or reply to that.
Only that I should cook at home.
Not that there is truly no “non-smoking section” unless it is built in a another area, closed off and has separate ventillation.
Were those points addressed? Were they copied for someone else’s blog post?
No, they were not. And those were the most important aspects of what was written.
I just want to know how many smokers on here, would eat a ounce of tar? Would you dunk your chicken wings in it?
Do you want someone to put a shot of nicotine in your beer?
Likely, you’d say no. Who could blame you. However…….
Some of the smokers on here are fiercely defensive and on the attack for their perceived right.
Maybe someone should post a copy of the constitution on here. Last I recalled there was nothing in the bill of rights or the constitution itself that granted the people the right to smoke.
I am sorry, but if someone can find it, we can work from there.
The constitution does give us the right to vote and rule by majority, which was done in this case.
Do those who are attacking us non-smokers realize that this was a vote not by the GOVERNMENT, but by the people?
With that stated, this is about what the VOTERS wanted, and asked for and GOT.
No judge has the right to state because a group of people didn’t like the outcome that the votes should be thrown out.
If so, then why vote on anything?
State wants to raise the sales tax? Fine go ahead, it’s not like voting matter.
Want to pass a law that says you now have to pay “monthly” car registration fees? Uh, sorry folks, you wanted a judge to intervene, and you can’t vote anymore.
Not like any of that could happen, but you never know.
They are used as examples only, and not meant to be “discussed. It is only so that we can see the importance of our democracy.
54% of the voters decided. That is what the focus is on. This is the society we live in.
An initiative was placed on a ballot. For good or bad, 54% said ban smoking.
We knew this was coming when the posters came out, and the initiatives were aired. This wasn’t like big government came in and decided to change it overnight.
The people were asked, the people answered.
If you agree, you go, you vote.
If you don’t like it, and think, if even for a second it might impact YOUR life, YOUR standard of living, YOUR RIGHTS–then you need to vote against it.
Don’t blame me, or the other non-smokers.
This was passed by the citizens of Nevada. This was their choice.
Both my mother and I have lived in Nevada for over 25 years. I think that makes us “permanent residents”.
If someone wants to post to me that I should move, great idea, would love to. Believe it or not, I wouldn’t even go to California.
Unfortunately, some of us are not as rich as those who can afford $30 a carton for smokes. We have just enough to get by and pay the bills $30 is a week’s worth of gas for our car. And we can’t just uproot our lives.
If I give you our address can you send us some money to cover the expenses of boxes, packing tape, movers, a moving truck, and secure us another residence in another? And, enough money to cover 6 months worth expenses while we look for work there in another state?
I will be happy to give my address for donations.
I am not trying to be a smart-a** or beg for money. That is not the point.
I am trying to tell everyone this issue was voted on, like it or not, this is our “by the people” government.
Do you want the right to vote or not? We could vote next year to have that right taken away.
That is a right that is in the constitution.
Comment by Marie — December 21, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
As a smoker and a business manager, I do see a benefit to the smoking ban
As the bars owners close down food service and lay off employees the Nevada unemployment rate will rise and then maybe I can find good quality employees. This will enhance my business but not really change the number of residents that are not working. Those who want to work will have jobs and those who don’t will rely on unemployment and public assistance to survive in Nevada.
Another benefit will be the lower cost of housing as many unemployed residents will be leaving the area to find employment in other cities.
I hope everyone resposible for this will remember their roll in this decision as their children or spouces are looking for work and the state impelemts new taxes to cover the losses that the ban has inflicted.
Comment by Ron Winker — December 21, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
If I get a ticket while smoking in a bar who is going to give it to me? I can give them any name I want if it is a health inspector. I don’t believe a health inspector has the right to ask me for ID. Also, how are they going to prove it is me smoking if I leave the cigarette in an ashtray?
Comment by debbi cooper — December 21, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
FOR EVERYONE WHO THINKS THAT THE BAN IS CRAP; REMEMBER- WE GET TO VOTE ON THIS AGAIN IN TWO YEARS. So make sure to show up at the polls and let YOUR voice be heard!!
And for all of the people who will now lose their jobs because of this I am truly sorry. I would imagine they too have children- Well at least they won’t be JOBLESS until after Christmas… Hey maybe they can go get a job in a casino since their business won’t be adversely affected.
Comment by tiffany — December 21, 2006 @ 11:37 pm
Thanks a lot Kalifornia. You know all of you who “voted” for this,,just remember one thing,,,
Soon your McDonald’s will be outlawed, too. When is the OVERUSE of perfume going to be outlawed? I hope all of you “non smokers” are going to be happy when our taxes are raised due to a cut in the tourist trade. Please, bars and gaming establishments were NOT MADE for children. Our police have MUCH better things to do than be bothering someone with a cigarette. I just want to know this much, who is going to help support the people who have now lost their jobs?
Comment by disgusted native — December 21, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
DEAD MEN DON’T TALK NOR DO THEIR DEAD DOGS WHO DIE FROM LUNG CANCER AND ALL FROM SMOKING.
And, that happened in my family and is documented when we took the dog in for chemo at the same time we dog our dad in for lung cancer. He had a beautiful Doberman that spent time with him in their home where they lived and they are both dead. We begged him to stop smoking but he would get aggravated and ignored the danger and now our beloved father is dead and the dog he loved so much has lost his life too. TAKE OUT LIFE INSURANCE AND SMOKE ALL YOUR WANT…Just don’t take your kids life while you are doing it and don’t smoke around me either. We lived the experience and we watched our dad suffer for 27 months from stage 4 lung cancer. Do you know those xrays don’t mean a thing when he had his 11 months after the first one when he had no tumors till that time he had 5 and 3 months to live. We spent money to give him the best care and he died anyway and suffered all the days he lived. DON’T WHINE,LIVE YOU DRINK YOUR WINE or you’ll dead justlike he is. The voters did you smokers a favor you didn’t deserve. Bite your nails or chew gum, not too many die from that and they don’t kill anyone either.
Comment by VAL — December 21, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
NEXT BALLOT INITIATIVE!!! Bar non-profit organizations from interfering in the election process unless they are willing to pay their fair share of taxes. All businesses are at a distinct disadvantage when they have to fight the untaxed money behind the Heart Association, Lung Association and other do-gooders. Do you really think Buffy and her friends will stop at smoking? Wait until they decide that sex more than once a month, or beer, or burgers are bad for you. They’ll fight it with all their tax free money!!! I’d really like to know what Buffy’s salary is from her tax exempt organization. Didn’t anybody from California pay attention in history and civics classes?
Comment by WR Gentry — December 22, 2006 @ 12:23 am
Sorry Smokers!! You had your chance to walk outside and smoke and not ruin everyone elses good time (smoking while we ate). Now you will have to go out to smoke and let the rest of us breathe.
Thanks Clark County for giving us non-smokers a chance! It is the one time I felt my vote meant something, and the best reason that I had for going to the polls this year. I really thought we were gonna get screwed by their “Clean Air Coalition”. Thank God the voters in Clark County saw through their stunts!
Comment by Eddie Ryan — December 22, 2006 @ 2:05 am
I feel if a tavern/bar has slot machines it should be considered a casino . How many slot machine does a place have to have to be considered a casino? Change the name P.T’s Pub, to P.T’s Casino., Timbers Bar & Grill to Timbers Casino etc. That should solve the no smoking ban, case closed
Comment by Connie — December 22, 2006 @ 3:40 am
Looks like California State Line has expanded. This is just like the person that move next to the airport then complains about the noise. What are people thinking when they move here to Las Vegas. It’s Gaming, Drinking and Smoking and you know that other thing. I agree that people have the right not to have to breath smoke but if you no that people smoke in Casino’s and bar’s then don’t go there. I smoke but I don’t like to smell it when I’m eating. Every restrant that I have been to has non smoking areas and if they didn’t I wouldn’t return. If these laws start to effect the casino’s which if they could vote it in would shut down the tourist visiting here. They come hear because it’s the Wild West. You know (What happens here, Stay’s here)
Comment by Robert P. — December 22, 2006 @ 5:26 am
Is anyone aware that the smoking ban that is suppose to protect children had alot of crap written into it that that has nothing to do with children. For example it bans all indoor smoking areas for employees. Even smoking rooms with closed doors where the smoke would never effect a non-smoker or SOMEONES CHILD. If I make the choice to walk into a room that is filled with smoke it should be my choice but non-smokers just decided that I cannot do that. Instead I am going to stand outside and when they walk by, don’t think I won’t blow it in thier face. As a state we all screwed up by not reading what we were voting for. Smoking was already banned in day care centers and on school property. So anyone who voted for 5 because of the day care centers and schools were just stupid.
Comment by Beck — December 22, 2006 @ 6:18 am
The fact is the anti-smoking law was passed by the voters.
If it’s allowed to be overturned by the whining people that didn’t vote for it and a local judge, then what does that say for the democratic system of voting? The majority spoke by voting smoking out on question 5 and that’s it. Smoking is proven to be unhelathy and even deadly, so if people have the mental weakness to continue to knowlingly kill themselves then do it in private. It is selfish and should be illegal for someone to endanger others with their dangerous and disgusting habits.
Comment by Dennis Wilson — December 22, 2006 @ 8:22 am
Ok first of all yes non-smokers rights do outway smokers rights. That’s because your nasty habit forces me to breath in your second hand smoke. So when one person’s “rights” endanger another persons health that trumps your “right” to smoke.
Second something these establishments are forgetting about is the business they will now be getting from those of us who didn’t go there before because of the smoking.
Comment by Penny Mckay — December 22, 2006 @ 8:28 am
What I don’t understand is why they want drunks in the bars with no food. Children should never be in a bar. You go to a bar to smoke and drink. They should provide food. They are setting us up for more drunk driving deaths and state taxes. This is Las Vegas. What are they thinking?
Comment by Margie — December 22, 2006 @ 8:38 am
I’m a 35-year-old Las Vegas native,and this ban makes be hang my head in shame.I remember as a senior in high school(16 years ago)having a teacher tell us that 4,000 people a month were moving here…I can only “speculate” that if this taking over of the valley had never occured,this question would have not appeared on the ballot.Congratulations all California transplants,you have successfully annexed my and many others’ hometown and made it over to be your own.I bestow the honor of this ban passing solely upon you,the former Golden Staters.Because without the 4,000 plus of you pouring into this city over the past years,this never would have been possible.And because of you also,I am no longer proud to live here.This is no longer the city I grew up in,and something tells me it’s just the beginning.(By the way,I do not smoke…it’s the issue of freedoms that were enjoyed here once upon a time disappearing…so much for the last of the wild west).
Comment by Tom Waits — December 22, 2006 @ 8:48 am
I am glad the law passed…It would be great if there was no smoking in any public place. I go out on week ends and all ways sit away from the smoker. 10 times out of 10 someone who smokes always sits by me. I beleive non smokers have rights to. I also beleive that cigars and pipes should not be allowed in casinos. If I fan it out of my face they get up set with me a make a very rude commet. So yes for non smoking.
Comment by Smoke free — December 22, 2006 @ 9:08 am
It is a shame that casinos are exempt of this law it just goes to show you that casinos run this state.
However there should be fines for the first offense to the bartender $2000.00 to the smoker $4000.00 to the bar owner $6000.00 this money is to be applied to cancer research
I would much rather have eaters than smokers
After all smokers are rude obnoxious people who think they have the right to pass out second hand smoke to everyone.
One of my bosses from when I worked in the casinos died from second hand smoke and he never smoked in his life
Comment by Richard Crachy — December 22, 2006 @ 9:33 am
Gee, to think this Town was build for ADULTS to have fun and relax. Those who don’t like smoking in Casino’s and Bars should stay out of them. Go Back to California, where there is NO SMOKING.If you don’t like our Town, MOVE. you came here. !DUH !
Comment by Tom Davis — December 22, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Not all the people who voted for question 5 did it solely for the children, so all of the people who argue that children should not be in the bar anyway need to reconsider the publics reasons for the passing of this bill. I voted for this bill because I, an adult, do not want to breath your toxic secondhand smoke everyday. It was a great idea to put children at the forefront of the campaign to gain sympathy votes for helpless children, but most of the people benefiting from this bill will be over 21.
Comment by Whitney Shofner — December 22, 2006 @ 9:47 am
I think this is a big joke..This is suppose to be to help the childern.1. they dont belong in bars!This is a thing to crush the little guys out here.If we wanted to live in Ca. we would.So to keep the kids safe we ban smoking,but we can let them drive an race down the streets an KILL people an themself. Take there licences away an let them smoke it will take a lot longer to kill some one else or themself.by smoking
Comment by Bill R. — December 22, 2006 @ 9:49 am
to the guy who is upset because the judge threw out the criminal penalties. how much jail time shou.ld someone get for lighting a cigarette in a bar? 3 years, 5 years? maybe life if 3rd offense? i dont smoke but some on this thread come acroos as borderline nuts. maybe you will all come out in droves to support the local joints now that you wont be tainted by smoke, but i doubt it. this law is so uneven revenues will go down and folks will lose jobs.makes no sense to me when you have freedom of choice. oh well
Comment by jim david — December 22, 2006 @ 10:33 am
So what do we do with the Casino restaurant coupons we get? Maybe McDonalds drive threw will honor them? I can’t gamble without my rewards? I hope all the non smokers realize that we will no longer be polite on the gaming floor. If you are not smoking I will sit next to you.
Comment by Margie — December 22, 2006 @ 10:52 am
i believe its a brilliant idea once the law on no smoking will be passed. think of this we wanna live longer. i hope all the casinos too will be no smoking. well…there maybe smokers but in fairness to non smokers we wanna eat our food healthy. im working in the casino and i breath all their smoke and i dont think its good for my health. please pass the law on no smoking
Comment by rasool barati — December 22, 2006 @ 11:04 am
I liked the guy’s comments right before me, so I’ll just copy & paste them since it’s exactly what I would have said:
We have too many people living in Las Vegas, who do not belong to this city. Las Vegas is to be kept smoky, wild, free, entertaining, lawless, nude and all that 24/7.
Comment by bob lazar — December 22, 2006 @ 11:11 am
“There is only speculations, no proof that the economy will be effected by this law”. What idiot does not know that everything is a speculation until it happens. Is this the attitude of all the idiots blowing red lights? They only speculate that someone could be killed.
“This law did not effect the economy in other states that passed it.” WOW. California is bankrupt. The cost of living is off the charts and you say laws like this make no difference. Helena Montana repealed their non-smoking ban after only 6 months due to the economic devestation of the law. The whole time idiots screaming “Its only speculation that it will effect our economy”.
This law will effect the lives of tens of thousands of people, non-smokers included. This is not speculation, IT IS A FACT.
Here’s a good one. Pass a law making employers pay their employees more money, then pass another law telling them you want their customers to go somewhere else.
The bar I go to does not allow anyone under 21 years of age. Now, a lot of the people that smoke will choose to simply go to the bars at a casino. The last time I was at a casino, there were hundreds of kids running around. Movie theaters, pizza parlors, bowling, and even a place to just drop your screaming brat off while you go drop a couple hundred dollars. You idiots and you infinite wisdom just took the smokers out of a place where your children would not be exposed to it, and crammed them into a place where they will.
Comment by Ken — December 22, 2006 @ 11:15 am
It appears the Ca. people and the big casinos won for now,but the fight has just begun.This statute presented to the court was very sloppy and the people involved are worried that this will be reversed in the supreme courts.Starting today when I go to the casinos I will be lighting up the biggest stogey I can get my hands on. I will blow enough smoke where it will 2 hours to find the exits for the non-smokers especially you air heads from California. By the way all you people from Ca. when you put out your garbage put the covers on top of the cans, all your garbage from the rice-a roni and tofu wrappers are blowing on my property.
Comment by Brian — December 22, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
If you are upset about the restaurant ban, simply refuse to tip if you are forced into a non smoking restaurant.
I have been handing out fliers saying why I am not tipping instead of tips.
No smoking in restaurants and bars = no tips. Sorry food service workers.. you wanted this, now that you are so “healthy” you wont be needing those tips anymore.
Comment by Notips.org — December 22, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
After reading all these posts, one wonders what there is left to say.
Well, here’s my 2 cents.
I think the smoking ban on bars that serve food is just downright stupid. Alot of bars will stop serving food now, and the result will be alot of smoking drunks on the road with no food in their stomachs to absorb the alcohol.
Won’t it be ironic when the people who championed this ordninance start getting hit by drunk drivers who couldn’t eat before they left the bar? This is the dumbest law I’ve ever seen enacted.
As far as the non-smokers go, what are non-smokers doing in bars anyways? Don’t they know that alcohol is much more dangerous than cigarettes? If you smoke 20 cigarettes a day for 10 years versus doing 20 shots a day for 10 years, you will certainly die of liver disease before lung cancer.
Alcohol is a MUCH more poisonous substance than 2nd hand tobacco smoke. Therefore, I can’t figure out why the non-smoking whiners demand to detroy their liver in non-smoking environment.
I wish all the Californians would go home. This is Nevada.
Comment by Jon — December 22, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
I never realized the economic clout 20% of the people have, I mean bars are in jeopardy of closing because smokers may have to go outside for 3 minutes to take a drag. Really ?
Heard this same argument in California and New York City - except the mass closings never happened.
Comment by G. Money — December 22, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
Guess What? Since we now have the smoking ban, by law, I no longer have to hire smokers! Your job duties are not required outside the building and it is not my job to watch you. Your best bet for 07 is to stop smoking.
Comment by bb — December 22, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Rewrite this law to require (bars/pubs/nightclubs/lounges)to divulge that they’re either a “smoke free” or a “smoking” establishment, therefore those who are offended and concerned with the health risk can choose to go elsewhere. It is crazy that this law will impact negatively so many jobs and businesses. I’m not a smoker and all for the right not to have to endure secondhand smoke, and at the same time the right and freedom to find a place that’s “smoke free”. Some Voters for this law probably will never step foot into one of these businesses, as is their right not to. But it is “not” their right to ruin and force a place out of business and ultimately people out of work simply because they don’t care to be around those who smoke. There should more alternatives out there that are “smoke free”. Carson City… please review and amend the wording of this “Smoking Ban”
Comment by Bill L. — December 22, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
First, I am stunned by the unbelievable slaughter of the English language in these posts. It is not surprising that the worst destruction of English is by the uneducated, myopic smokers who are fuming because they can no longer hold their cigarettes under my nose at a bar.
Second, as a couple of posters noted, there are very few “non-smoking” restaurants in this town. I live in the northwest and my primary choices are Mimi’s, Red Robin or a number of bars/taverns. I don’t have kids. I don’t want to be in Red Robin surrounded by screaming, undisciplined brats. I also don’t want to suffocate in a cloud of second hand smoke. There are surprisingly few cafes and specialty restaurants in this town. There are foul, bland, unhealthy places such as I-Hop and Denny’s. There are bland chains such as Applebee’s and Chili’s. Then there are bars, such as Town Center Lounge and Roadrunner, which actually have good food, but where I can not/will not eat because of the smoke. Why should I have to be limited in my choice of where to eat because smokers are too self-absorbed to get up and go outside? The smokers are upset because they can’t move forward with the status quo, where they ruled our eateries with no concern for the health of employees or other patrons. I am looking forward to patronizing someplace besides Mimi’s or Applebees.
Finally, let me tell you the first place I will be going to eat after Judge Herndon’s order has been entered. It will be at sore loser Sean Higgins’ restaurants/bars, “Three Angry Wives”. If Mr. Higgins’ employees do not pull the ashtrays, post non-smoking signs and inform smokers to step outside in order to effectuate 5 in their bars and taverns, I will be making calls to the Health Department to ensure that his employees and patrons are “educated” about the new law. I will also be very keen to see if anyone has enough guts to run against Judge Herndon. I was appalled at his pontification from the bench. How dare he be offended that members of the public said they would work to vote him off the bench if he granted the preliminary injunction. He apparently doesn’t understand that judges in Nevada are elected, and if the people do not like his jurisprudence, they have the absolute right to do everything in their power to get him off the bench.
Comment by Lisa — December 22, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
I WAS A FORMER SMOKER BUT I TRULY FEEL THAT IF SMOKERS CAN STOP SMOKING WHILE THEY ARE IN FLIGHT, WHICH CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM 3 HOURS TO 14 HOURS, OR MORE, DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY ARE GOING, THEN THEY CERTAINLY CAN HAVE THE COMMON DECENCY TO NOT SMOKE WHILE THEY ARE IN A RESTUARANT, STORE OR FOR THAT MATTER, IN A CASINO. BELIEVE ME, A GAMBLER WILL STILL GAMBLE WHETHER THEY ALLOW SMOKING OR NOT, JUST LIKE THOSE WHO TRAVEL BY PLANE WILL STILL TRAVEL EVEN THOUGH THEY CANNOT SMOKE. ITS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, EVERYONE COMPLAINS ABOUT THE GAS PRICES, BUT THEY STILL BUY THE GAS. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I SMOKED FOR 50 YEARS, THAT’S RIGHT, 50 YEARS, AND, FOUR MONTHS AGO I PUT THE CIGARETTE DOWN AND HAVEN’T HAD ONE SINCE. WITHDRAWALS, MY FOOT. ITS ALL HYPED. ITS ALL IN YOUR MIND. THERE IS HOWEVER, WEIGHT GAIN. BUT SOME EXERCISE AND SOME PROPER DIETING WILL FIX THAT. BUT I’LL TELL YOU ONE THING, MY SON MIKE BAKED ME A BIRTHDAY CAKE FOR MY 70TH BIRTHDAY, AND I WAS ABLE TO BLOW OUT THE CANDLES. WHEN I WAS A SMOKER, I NEVER, EVER, SMOKED IN MY HOME. WHAT HAPPENED TO WILL POWER, AND STRENGTH. HAS EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY TURNED INTO PUPPETS ON A STRING. HAVE YOU GOTTEN SO WEAK THAT YOUR BRAIN IS DIRECTING YOU AND YOU CAN’T TELL YOUR BRAIN WHAT TO DO ANYMORE. ONE OF THE CASINOS OUT HERE IN PAHRUMP, SADDLE WEST, OPENED UP A NON SMOKING SECTION FOR GAMBLERS. THAT SECTION HAS MORE PEOPLE GAMBLING IN IT THAN THE SMOKING SECTIONS. I’M NOT TELLING ANYONE TO STOP SMOKING, THAT’S SOMETHING YOU MUST DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. BUT IT’S WHERE YOU ARE SMOKING THAT IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE DISEASE. YOU ARE INFECTING OTHER PEOPLE WITH YOUR HABIT. YOUR LUNGS ARE YOUR OWN BUSINESS, HOWEVER, THEIR LUNGS ARE THEIR BUSINESS. IF YOU WANT TO FILL YOUR LUNGS UP WITH SMOKE, GO RIGHT AHEAD, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO KEEP THEIR LUNGS CLEAR. AS FOR ME, I HAVE ALREADY SAVED $800.00 IN FOUR MONTHS BY NOT SMOKING AND MUCH MORE THAN THAT, I HAVE ADDED YEARS TO MY LIFE AND FEEL MUCH BETTER AND STRONGER THAN I HAVE IN MANY MANY YEARS. ITS ALSO NICE TO KNOW WHAT FOOD REALLY TASTES LIKE. DO YOU EVER STOP AND REALIZE THAT YOU GO WITHOUT CIGARETTES EVERY NIGHT WHILE YOU ARE SLEEPING! I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT EVERYTIME YOU TAKE A PUFF ON A CIGARETTE, ITS LIKE TAKING A PUFF ON THE EXHAUST FUMES IN THE BACK OF A BUS. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU TO GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO SMOKE, BUT ITS WHERE YOU SMOKE THAT INFFRINGES ON OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS AND LIVES. THANK YOU.
Comment by NONNIE JOERGER — December 22, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
I think it’s ridiculous — what’s the big deal? If a bar doesn’t want smokers, they should become a non-smoking bar, and vs. I’m a smoker, and I just wouldn’t go there. How can a smoker have a drink without a cigarette? How can a smoker have dinner without a cigarette after? If parents are worried about their kids around smokers, well, they don’t have to take them to bars to eat — they can go to non-smoking restaurants. I like to smoke and I’m not ready to quit. If the whole town goes non-smoking, well, I just won’t go out to eat, drink or play anywhere. A lot of other smokers would do the same. If friends want to go to non-smoking restaurants, I just won’t go with them. I enjoy my cigarettes with my meals and drinks. Out of courtesy to others at home, I smoke outside — so going out is a treat for me, but only IF I CAN SMOKE. I think a lot of business places will lose a lot of business going to non-smoking. That voting issue #5 was very mis-leading — it should be re-voted, for the sake of the smokers and the business places who want to keep their smoker business.
Comment by Lori — December 22, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
In response to Lisa’s remarks concerning the ban posted on 12/22.
So,you dont like smokers who cant spell,children,applebees,mimis,
judge herndon,sean higgins,dennys,Ihop,roadrunner,towncenter lodge,three angry wives and with any energy left you are going to call the health department with all your troubles? Lisa,please enjoy your christmas dinner at the drive thru. Im sure you will find something wrong with that too.
Comment by bob — December 23, 2006 @ 12:33 am
A DISGRACE. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT US SMOKERS CAN DO TO TRY AND MODIFY THIS RULING OR WILL IT HAVE A SHOT TO BE CHANGED IF IT GOES TO THE SUPREME COURT? SMOKING IS NO GOOD FOR YOU BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THE PROOF OF SECOND HAND SMOKE ISNT 100 PER CENT ACCURATE AND WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION - PEOPLE GET DRUNK AND DRIVE AND KILL PEOPLE BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE AN OKAY THING TO DO. LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER POLLUTION - CARS, FUMES, ETC - ITS A SHAME THE POOR LITTLE PEOPLE (BAR OWNERS AND SMOKERS)-ONCE AGAIN THE THE RICH AND GREEDY HAVE OVERCOME - IF IT WAS JUST FOR THE KIDS ITS OKAY BUT ITS ALL AN OBVIOUS BUNCH OF LIES WITH KIDS NOT HANGING OUT IN BARS. AND NOW THE CASINOS CAN TAKE THE SMOKING CUSTOMERS INTO THEIR ESTABLISHMENTS SO THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY. DOES THIS MEAN THE CASINOS HAVE TO SHUT DOWN ALL THEIR MOVIES AND BOWLING AND ARCADES BECAUSE KIDS ATTEND THESE AND SMOKE WILL STILL BE IN THE AIR? FURTHERMORE, SECOND HAND SMOKE CAN BE FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES AND NOT JUST CIGARETTES. OH WELL I HOPE SOMETHING CAN CHANGE BUT OBVIOUSLY LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE GETTING SOME KIND OF KICK BACK TO GO AHEAD AND ENFORSE THIS LAW. A DISGRACE!
Comment by Glenn — December 23, 2006 @ 2:51 am
We are the only place in America where the general public has to inhale somebody else’s cigarette smoke in order to buy groceries and get perscription medicine. Right now, you can’t walk into a grocery store or pharmacy in Clark County (except for Walgreen’s) without moving through a cloud of smoke. The slot areas are at entrance of the stores and in many cases they line both walls of the entrance. The supposedly separate “video slot areas” are a joke and do not stop the poison from clouding the entrance or wafting through the store. No wonder Nevada ranks #1 for childhood asthma, and #2 for heart disease. Wake up, people! Where else but in Nevada does someone have to inhale second-hand smoke while picking up their asthma medication in a pharmacy.
Despite the new law, I am still concerned this won’t change. If the slot route operators who lease the space in the grocery stores and pharmacies have unrestricted gaming licenses, they won’t have to remove the ashtrays and nothing will change.
Comment by Jen — December 23, 2006 @ 6:19 am
Hi Clarke County, You must be strong on secondhand smoke inveiw of the overwhelming medical evidence,
I live in Ireland and heard all the excuses from interested businesses putting $$$$ before health.
A nationwide ban is in place here for nearly two years and it is a big success, My partner and I would love to visit you all again but we only hope it will be smoke free. If it works in Irish Bars it will work anywhere. Good Luck from Ireland George Myatt.
Comment by George Myatt — December 23, 2006 @ 11:03 am
First off, i would like to say that i am very happy about the smoking ban. Im tired of going into an establishment to eat or have a cocktail and leave smelling like an ashtray!! All you smokers who are saying that the ban is bad because people will be laid off is BS!! You couldnt care less if someone looses a job. Why should we non smokers have to go elsewhere because you are to lazy to get off your butt and go outside? I think the ban is great! If smokers want to kill themselves, do just that, but dont kill everyone else around you who is strong willed and has elected not so inhale poison purposely. If you want to smoke and eat…. THEN STAY HOME!! You can smoke all the cancer sticks you want and stink up your house and smell like P.W.T all you want!!
Comment by Lavell — December 23, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
I was intending to visit Vegas in April, I will now reconsider, I don’t mind the ban on smoking in resturaunts, but to ban smoking in bars is going to far, I live in Ireland where there is a complete smoking ban indoors, since that ban came in to force bars have had to increase the price of drinks because less people are drinking in the bars and more and more young people are getting carry-outs and drinking outside and hanging around drunk, and when you do walk past a pub at night you find 10 - 12 drunken people standing outside the bar smoking and littering the streets with fag butts and ciggerete packets and it can be intimidating,
Comment by Joe — December 23, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
What I find as funny is someone who claims to be “educated” like our resident anti smoking Nazi “Lisa” has nothing positive to say, so they attack peoples spelling and grammar to make them feel superior.
Lisa, go back to Kalifornistan, you are not welcome here and I will make a POINT of smoking if you are around.
Go and report me.. lol the law is toothless and will do nothing. You can spread your nazi control freak garbage all you want, make your calls, scream and yell, 98% of the bars WILL allow smoking on the sneak and you can do nothing to stop it.
Yes I go to “Three Angry Wives”, No I WILL NOT stop smoking or post signs, and yes, you will sit in smoke and SUFFER. Its war, your control freakish behavior started this war in Vegas, and you WILL LOSE THIS ONE.
Comment by Lisa Hater — December 24, 2006 @ 11:56 am
I am a casino manager in Colorado and I just want to say; SMOKERS - WAKE UP - your days are numbered -we will not stop our crusade until the only place you have left to smoke is in your private vehicle or your private home. If you want to kill yourself or, in some cases, your children go ahead. Leave me and those who do not wish to breath your toxic smoke or smell like it alone!!
Some of you say that alcohol is more poisonous than smoke. Sorry, this is BS. If a drunk sits beside me or in the same area, unless he hits me or pukes on me he is not bothering me. If you sit in the same room with your stinking cigarette or cigar I not only breath it I smell like it when I get home. Smokers and the smell that goes with them makes me physically ill and it is a battle each & every day to work in someone else’s smoke filled environment. If you were meant to smoke the good lord would have provided you with a smoke stack. I am too old to find another job or career. This will drive us all out of business. BULL CRAP!!! Just ban smoking everywhere and make the penalty for violating the ban meaningful enough that offenders will be few and far between.The smokers won’t have anywhere to go & they damn sure won’t all stay home. The Coloradro legislature passed a half-way smoking ban in 2006 they just didn’t have enough balls to include our casinos. Casinos are the next target in 2007. If this initiative would have been on the ballot we would have gotten smoking banned in the entire state, in all businesses. That is why the legislature got involved,
they didn’t want their cash cow casinos in the ban.
Jim McGee
Comment by Jim McGee — December 25, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
In Britain they call these people nico-nazis. I don’t smoke.
Comment by T. G. — December 25, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
First of all, I can see points from both the smokers side (because I smoke) and the non-smokers side. The problem is I don’t mind not having a cigarette in a restaurant…I can do with out one while I eat. The problem is, the places that they are planning on taking away smoking at. For instance the airport. That is not a bar nor is it a place where there is food served. What does taking down the smoking room have to do with this new law. Maybe I don’t understand it, but if you ask me smokers are being discriminated against. If the law just stated that there would be no more smoking in restaurants, not all places where food was served, then I would agree with the new law, but it is targeting places that it should not be targeting. Bars should be a place for adults only. No one under 21 should go inside whether or not food is being served or not. That is not a family place! I believe the question should have never been allowed on the ballot, but since it was it should have been made more plain to the voters what was going to happen.
Comment by Jean — December 25, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
Looks like the world will come to an end because the addicts can’t suck butts indoors! Perhaps we should protest the drinking laws by getting sloshed in our cars on the way to our jobs in the morning! Hell, we won’t have jobs pretty soon anyway because you can’t suck butts in a grocery store! Albertson’s and Smith’s will probably close now because you can’t smoke inside! OH! The humanity! Why not blame the passing of this new law on aliens from area 51? I’m not from California but it seems you addicts seem to fix your blame on that state.Why not blame New Jersey? Happy hacking…outside!
Comment by R.Daniels — December 26, 2006 @ 6:21 am
I wish the non-smokers would realize that us smokers just want things to stay the way they are. Let’s re-vote, how about 2 out of 3? The voters must have been confused. How could 54% of the people not want to breathe secondhand smoke? Please don’t make us go outside to smoke. I have to do that at home and don’t want to do that in public too. It makes me feel like an outcast or a drug-addict, or a murderer. Many of the people I have to stand outside and smoke with, I don’t like. I’m not like them, I’m not selfish and angry. I just want to smoke anywhere I want. I do I do I do.
By the way, I also don’t want non-smokers to cough when exposed to secondhand smoke.
Comment by MeMe — December 26, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
Oh, I wish all you puffers would get a life. All you do is talk about your rights. What about my rights? If you want to shoot up heroin all day in the comfort of your own trailer, then by all means, have at it. But thinking that I should have to be subjected to your disgusting, rancid, HARMFUL, smoke-clouds while I eat my lunch is simply absurd.
Just throw in the towel. Your days of infecting the rest of us are numbered. I am a Las Vegas native (not a Californian!) and will bless the days when you can’t smoke anywhere except in your own stinky homes.
Comment by Angie — December 27, 2006 @ 9:44 am
The law is very flawed. The big casinos are the only ones that will win. If you want clean air it should have been banned everywhere. The small businesses are going to lose a large portion of their customers because, unlike other states with a total smoking ban, they have an option to go somewhere else. Smokers may make up a small portion of the general population but they make up a HUGE portion of the bar/casino population (if they didn’t then why would it be an issue). Other states didn’t lose as much revenue due to the fact that smokers had nowhere else to go.
This ban really doesn’t affect me. I don’t take my kids to these places because I feel they are adult places and because of the smoke. I don’t get out to “bars” very often and I don’t smoke…but I still think it is silly to allow the big casinos to follow a different set of rules.
The voters were duped into putting money into the pockets of big casinos and squeezing the little guy out (once again, the difference being that here they have somewhere else to go but in other places they have no choice…that is why there will be a much bigger impact).
The voters picked this law…it should go through. Despite how biased it is to small business.
Nevada is becoming the People’s Republic of California II (the nanny state…I’m waiting for the taxes on soda, and food with a fat content over 5g…or even better, we can all just get an preapproved email each week telling us what to make for dinner and our shopping budget for the week)
Oh, and I would be willing to bet that you have a much better chance of being killed by the thousands of people that run every red light in this town than you do dying from the second hand smoke from a bar. Just a thought when people want the police to waste their time arresting smokers when we are constantly dodging red light runners.
Comment by Mel — December 27, 2006 @ 11:10 am
I think people are missing something very big here. The first commentor did hit it on the nose. Nevadans have voted for big business.
Before everybody attacks me, let me say I am a nonsmoker..who is all for a complete public smoking ban. I’m also for allowing the little guys to compete with the big guys. As the first commenter stated, in other states a smoking ban leaves smokers with no choices, don’t smoke. All this ban did was push smokers into spending their money at casino bars, instead of their corner bar…ban the smoking, get rid of the exemption..If we must have an exemption..give it to all drinking and gambling establishments..not just the big ones!!
Comment by Vic Miles — December 28, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
Thanks to some of the comments on here from non-smokers (and smokers too), I’m done. No more, ever again. It made me see smoking for what it really is….stupid. If smokers themselves think it’s stupid, think how a non-smoker feels who has to involuntarily suffer the effects of it.
Some of the things I read are exactly right. Especially about how shooting guns in parks are no different than people smoking in public. You can’t just tell people if they don’t like it, to go somewhere else. Or if they have to drive past a park to get to work or school, to take another route Or if their job is to mow the grass at the parks, to get another job. And you also don’t solve the problem by taking guns away. People have the right to do anything they want, as long as it doesn’t infringe on, or hurt other people. That’s one of the benefits of a civilized society that creates rules, regulations, and laws.
I especially thank Bob Duffy who made several comments on here over the last few weeks. I went to the beat nicotine web site link and read more and so many things made a lot of sense. I honestly can’t believe I never looked at it that way before. We are definitely brainwashed and often blinded by the selfishness of the addiction. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that as a smoker if I dislike non-smokers, I will probably never become one. After all, nobody wants to be one of those “ex-smokers”. How ingenious! Well, I will tell you, I did, I do, and I am…and I’m proud of it. People stop smoking permanently when they decide they don’t want to be addicted to nicotine any more. They don’t quit because they know they should. Every smoker knows they SHOULD quit.
I became a non-smoker very recently, but it actually seems like a lifetime ago. I smoked like a chimney for over 25 years and absolutely guarantee that I will never smoke again. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
The freedom feels so wonderful. Like that web site also states, I know my body is going through changes, but it actually feels good. I know it’s good for me. When my hand reaches for a pack of cigarettes, it’s actually kind of amusing. Like laughing when you look at your wrist over and over after forgetting your watch. It’s no big deal. Not reaching for a cigarette will soon become a habit too. Not wanting to smoke and knowing I will never smoke again, is a sensation I never felt before.
I hope this post helps somebody.
Comment by Free and thankful — December 28, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
First I want to say not all non-smokers are anti-smokers. I am a non-smoker, but have no problem whatsoever with people smoking. I do, however, have a problem with the hateful, intolerant, attitudes of both the smokers and anti-smokers on this page.
In post after post I read anti-smokers hurling nasty, un-called for barbs at smokers. This is followed by smokers threatening to blow smoke in all non-smoker’s faces. What is wrong with you people? You’re leading with your emotions and not your intellect.
Yes, for better or worse, the ban passed and has been upheld. It’s not a fair law because it violates the freedom of PRIVATE, small business owners. I fully understand a smoking ban in PUBLIC places such as City Hall, the Public Library, the Police Station… any and all institutions financially supported by the taxpayer. As for private businesses… any and all private businesses including restaurants, bars, bowling allies, casinos, etc.,.. it should be up to the owner(s) as to whether or not smoking should be permitted. No person HAS to patronize a particular establishment, nor does any person HAVE to seek employment in an unsuitable environment. Have we all forgotten we are free to make choices? If a business owner does not care about the comfort of non-smoking clients, that’s perfectly acceptable. By the same token, if a business owner wants to run a smoke-free establishment, it is his or her right.
What worries me is the tendency of the anti-smoker (or anti-anything for that matter) to use the law to impose his or her will on others.
The saddest thing of all is the changing climate in Las Vegas. This was once an adult town where tolerance and freedom reigned. Smokers and non-smokers alike took responsibility for themselves and would have been horrified at the mere thought of giving up their freedom to government. Smokers and non-smokers co-existed. If it got too smokey in one place, we just went to another place.
Anti-smokers are a different beast, however. It’s as if Las Vegas found itself the proverbial bad girlfriend: I love you for who you are… now change.
Comment by Bobby — December 30, 2006 @ 4:09 am
As a non-smoker I’m appalled at the infantile behavior of those that support this law. Read through some of the comments poster here and you’ll see what I mean. This isn’t about the health risks of second hand smoke, it’s all about control. There have been plenty of restaurants that offered smoke free environments to their customers, but these children aren’t happy with that. They don’t want to have to make a choice to give their business to a restaurant that’s voluntarily smoke-free. They want it all their way and won’t stop throwing tantrums until that’s exactly what they get. They claim that the demand for smoke-free restaurants is increasing, but that’s obviously bull. If that were true then businesses would be complying with that already. It’s all about supply and demand, and if there’s a shortage of smoke-free dining then it has to be because most diners are requesting seats in the smoking section. Maybe if the non-smokers were out making their economic presence known they would have been able to get the results they wanted without this silly law. They claim that smoke-free businesses fail because the playing field is uneven, so they go and force everyone to play by the same rules. Seems to me that their economic clout is just useless. Looks like they just can’t compete with smokers fairly when it comes to spending money.
You’re all just sad examples of democracy at work. You do an awful lot of screaming about your right to breathe clean air without having to deal with second hand smoke, but what about pedestrians? Who gave you the right to pollute the air they breathe with the exhaust from your cars? Drive a car and you’re just as guilty of killing someone as any smoker is. Of course you’re just going to shout the same things smokers do when someone attacks them. Where in the Constitution does it state you have a right to drive a car? Want clean air then stop being a hypocrite and do something about it. Get rid of your SUV’s and take public transportation, reduce the number of cars on our roads and clean up the air for everyone. Of course you’ll never do that since it involves infringing on your so called rights. You’re a pack of selfish fools and you don’t deserve to have this law. Not until you stop looking for scapegoats and take responsibility for your own contributions to fouling the air we breathe.
The good news is that this law appears to have been de-clawed. The law enforcement agencies were against it from the beginning and it looks like they got their way. Since they’re no longer mandated to enforce it then the burden rests with the health district. Somehow I get the impression that most smokers will be able to afford a $100.00 fine on the rare occasion a health inspector is present to issue a citation. Simple matter for me and other friends that don’t smoke to chip in 5-10 dollars to help cover the fine for a friend that does smoke. Small price to pay if it means helping to restore freedom of choice and get rid of this fascist nonsense.
Comment by Jim — January 1, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
What you posted on 12/21 IS NOT WHAT I wrote at all. Posted by: Susan Fowler December 21, 2006 at 03:29 PM is in Error. I don’t know who wrote that but I did not. This is a violation of my freedom of speech. Someone else wrote that or you were afraid to post what I really said and someone changed my words. This I do not appreciate this violation. Here is what I posted. I posted my blog posted 3:30pm 12/21/06 by Susan Fowler As reads following:
Talk about playing both sides of the fence. Approving what the voters voted on and passed without criminal penalties! What a joke! Judge Douglas Herndon’s afraid to anger either side. Afraid to do what’s right by the voters. A judge we should not put back on the bench. Both sides on this issue should remember the name Judge Douglas Herndon and vote him out in the next election. Next time it may be an issue you smokers want him to stand behind that he doesn’t. I was willing to accept the majority vote on the outcome of this issue. It will benefit me greatly if it is enforced. There should be criminal penalties put on the establishments and the people who break the law. A law that we the people of Las Vegas voted on and passed. Your hurting everyone in the room when you smoke. Those who know it and those who don’t. I grew up in a home where both parents smoked. My husband smoked. I never minded if someone smoked even though I never smoked myself. I was 26 before we learned how their smoking had harmed me. I look forward to going to places I couldn’t before because of the smoke. My father died an offal death from smoke related throat cancer and then lung cancer. To all of you who refuse this law may you go through what he did. He didn’t know what laid in his future. In 2006 you should all know better. If you want to shorten your life and die a painful offal death go for it! But don’t impose it on those around you. Go outside and smoke where all the other addicts go. God Bless all of you who respect the rights of everyone by not smoking where you can harm others. God Bless all the establishments who are not afraid to stand up for the new law and enforce it. May they find that their business will prosper even better. God Bless America!
The below posted are not my words or my feelings. I don’t know who wrote them but I did now. Please remove my name from the below paragraph.—
Amazing to me the ignorance of people in this town. Smoker / Non-smoker….who cares. Personally, I don’t smoke, but I think this law is as Judge Douglas Herndon said, “Filled with problems.” This was put together very hastily. The law makers were in such a hurry to put something together in time to get it on the ballot that they took little more than speculated interest into the economic impact. Should the tavern owners decide to close kitchens, thousands of your fellow Las Vegans are going to be out of jobs, all in the name of clean air. That’s BS. How would you like to loose your job because someone put together a ballot question that has no structure or definition? There was a comprimise here and it could have been easily arranged had the lawmakers and health department lobbyists not been so ignorant.
Personally I hope the taverns close their kitchens just to spite the voters that passed this initiative. They make more money on gaming revenues anyway. I also hope that the remaining eateries raise their food prices through the roof. That way you can pay (literaly) for your clean air.
Way to go Vegas!!!
Comment by Susan Fowler — January 2, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
I stay away from Vegas because of the smoke. I can’t stand the stench from cigarettes or the loser smokers puffing on them. Smokers are stupid having started smoking and weak because they can’t quit.
Comment by Greg R — January 3, 2007 @ 5:12 am
So now smoking in public is just like shooting a gun at the park?
Some of you really need to check your head.
Take your gun to the park and just pop off a couple rounds and see if you can convince the judge that YOUR the smart one and that it is just the same as smoking in public.
Who do you think is behind this huge ban on second hand smoke. When they couldnt convince people to quit on thier own they simply made up studys to scare everyone else into forcing people to quit.
Second hand smoke is the biggest money maker for the huge drug companys. A new drug to help you quit hits the market weekly.
The studys on second hand smoke have got to be the biggest jokes since studys started.
If your reading this, you have everything you need right in front of you to check out who is behind these bogus studys. Also how they simply manipulate the numbers to show an outcome they want. Dont take my word for it. LOOK. Google second hand smoke. Try some of the sites that are impartial for a change.
Comment by Ken — January 3, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
I can’t beleive there is a debate on this subject at all! Smoking is unhealthy and even if you do smoke you know that … so why take your health risk and push it on those who choose not to smoke. If I had a “habit” of spitting would it be Okay for me to spit on whoever was in my path. I think NOT!
I think if smokers want to smoke in their homes or cars, go for it no one will tell. However in the populated areas keep your cig. in your pockets. If smokers would just use common sense in lighting up there would not even need to be laws about it. No smoking in elevators, escalators, bathrooms etc. I for one think it is weak when non-smokers say “they don’t care” We all need to care because we pay for it not only with our own health problems but through our pocketbooks in paying all those insurance bills. We have no right to smoke in public … we have no right to take away the right to breath fresh air, I have asthma problems and I have a right to “GO out of my house”. Smokers are only progamed to say two things “Go back to CA. and stay home if you don’t like smoke” Please stop being so defensive and start using common sense SMOKING IS BAD FOR ALL OF US!
Comment by Anita — January 4, 2007 @ 9:56 am
It’s really not about smoking or not smoking.
If this is such a good law.
Why didn’t it pass by 80%?
You say 80% of the people of Nevada don’t smoke.
Something I was taught in school.
Becareful what you wish for……
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Martin Niemoeller
Comment by Terry Hahn — January 4, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
lol reading some of the comments especially the ones that dont know how to make an intelligent comment without insults. Laissez Faire
ladies and gentlemen. granted Laissez Faire is usually referenced to free trade but now business owners are now told how to run THEIR business by the govt. Really nice. It is your decision to go into a bar or a restaurant with a smoking section. “Posted by: Rhonda Harvey | December 04, 2006 at 04:32 PM
I love it! I only wish all the Casinos would go totally non-smoking throughout the entire Hotel and Casino areas too.
Due to working in the Casino industry for 20 years, I will carry my years of second hand smoke as Asthma for the rest of my life,”
sure they can do that, and then you can start paying state taxes and then people will complain about that.
“Posted by: Marty | December 04, 2006 at 09:40 PM
Finally!! It seems as if every arrogant, dirtbag smoker takes great pleasure in blowing smoke in the face of others who try to sit in the pointless smoking sections, or when they are walking by you in public. Haha, now you can’t!! You are providing a service that KILLS people. If you want to do that , lock yourself in a windowless room and smoke your yellow self into a hole. Nicotene stays on you, your clothes, your skin and everything you own. It’s about time that it’s against the law for you to quit “sharing” with the rest of us.
”
the mindless rhetoric of someone who cant form a rational discussion without insult.
“Posted by: bob | December 05, 2006 at 10:02 PM
If people hate second hand smoke so much, why do they go places that allow smoking? I go to smoke free resturants,grocery stores,pharmacy’s and I pay at the pump. Guess what, no second hand smoke. This smoking ban will be devastating for Las Vegas.”
Bob Common sense isnt necessarily a common virtue but i commend you for being one of the few to use it.
Comment by Jason — January 5, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
I am so puzzled by the ambigous nature of the smoke free Nevada campaign. The arguement who should be fined for the violation should be clearly understood. The businesses should be responsible for letting customers smoke in their premises. I have not heard any mechanism in which violation could be reported to authorities for enforcement. In other states, such as Minnesota, a phone number is available in which any person can report any smoking ban violation to authorities.And the business in which the violation takes place get a fine of up to $ 1,000. Why don’t we take similar action here in Nevada.
Comment by Eyob Tadesse — January 5, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Haha this law is already being ignored all over Nevada. I ate out tonight and had a nice smoke after my meal. Ashtrays were out, everyone was smoking.
You cant control people in Vegas, this aint NYC and we are not sheep.
In places posted no smoking, I make a POINT Of smoking in the bathroom.. just because.
Comment by Joe — January 14, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
I think the whole smoking ban is crazy,if you go to a bar where you must be 21 to drink the you are an adult and can choose to be there or not.If do this to bar and restraunt owners its only fair to make the ban for casinos also.Smoking is not illegal so why cant people do it?
Comment by Omer Marion — January 23, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
if the establishment does not allow smoking, dont smoke, if it does non smokers can leave. I hear all these non smokers complaining about smoke yet is it not a choice whether to frequent the place or not. we all have freedom of choice. i have always been a polite smoker, always going outside, sitting in non smoking and smoking and still going outside to smoke. the only issue i have with the ban is it takes away a certain freedom of choice. i would like to be able to frequent any establisment i choose, or to leave it if i choose. if i dont like the place or the people i leave. i agree that kids should not be in bars or taverns at all regardless, food or no food. non smokers should not frequent smokers bars and then complain, and in fairness, smokers should not frequent non smoking places and complain, point is everyone should have the freedom to choose,there has to be a happy medium somewhere. i believe non smokers are making more of an issue out of this than there need to be. i would like to see fda results that say that second hand smoke is more dangerous than the air we breathe or the food we eat or for that matter the genes that we carry naturally. people are trying to hold others accountable for what they deem to be the right and proper thing to do. fact is there is not always a right and proper, look and the gangs, rapes, murders, drunk driving, suicides and in general, mans indifference to man. if you want your kids to live in a safe environment, you need to put them in a bubble or educate them in your ways and the way you think they should be, dont keep attempting to change the world to suit your needs, teach and train your kids to live in the world not against it. everyone has something that they dont like. i dont like drinking and driving, yet prohibition was lifted. in the end it is totally up to us to navigate our own way in the world without infringing on others. please make your fight worth fighting over and not for your own gain in a world where each is his own and freedom of choice is still, so far, a freedom and a choice. i dont want to blame california, they can do what they want. but now they are trying to legislate disciplining your own child. how far are we going to let the government into our private lives. it will only get worse in the future. so let me ask you, if you change freedom of choice, for your children, and dont teach them about choice, and if, in the near future you are told how to discipline your child, do you honestly think your child will ever have a mind of his or her own .our goal as parents is to teach and train our kids to have a mind of their own and to give them the freedom to live their lives apart from ours. if you push to take that choice away now, how will they feel about you when they have no freedom of choice in the future, REGARDLESS OF THE ISSUE. it may just be smoking now, but what will it turn into later. ask yourself if it is all worth it.
Comment by carla — January 23, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
When obesity becomes the number one cause of death, are we going to ban fat people from public places?
Comment by Kelly — January 23, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
This law has as much of a chance of working as Bush has brains..NONE..Wake up people this is Vegas baby people come here to SIN not to be preached at…And for all the cry babies out there whining about second hand smoke, hey I don’t want to have to breath in your exhaust from that GAS sucking SUV your driving while I’m riding my bike trying not to get run over by some non-smoker talking on the cell phone instead of driving. And Yeah I smoke, I drink, I gamble, I enjoy sex, I’m the perfect Las Vegas resident…I can only wonder what Dean Martin would have to say about this…
Comment by Zoine — January 23, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Smoking ban - just like when I used to live in CA - and being a former Las Vegas resident, I find it appaling. What if I decided to buy properties and rent them? Point: You see some rentals which are no smoking/etc. What if I rented and said “smokers and pets ok, no kids?” Many( I KNOW NOT ALL) tear places up for lack of discipline. What other freedoms are we Americans going to lose? Pretty soon farting will be considered polluting and the EPA will make people wear crack filters!
Comment by Stan — January 23, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
I am a non-smoker from NY state. First, the business will not be effected like they are crying about. In NYS they get alot of snow and the smokers still go outside and do their thing. What my thing is respect. When I go out I can choose to drink, I can choose to eat heathly but when others are smoking around me I do not have the choice to inhale that smoke. If you want to smoke go right ahead, smoke a whole pack in 5 mintues, I DON’T CARE! However I do care if I smoke. I choose not to and because of that I have no rights or respect! That is all I think most of us want.
The big problem with the law that NYS did right was if a place was caught allowing people to smoke they could then be fined up to and over $5,000 each case. Untill the law changes to follow NY and Calif. you will never see people showing each other respect.
THAT IS THE BIGGIST SHAME, THAT WE NEED LAWS TO RESPECT EACH OTHER.
Comment by Kirstie — January 24, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Good job! It’s nice to go to the grocery or convenience store and not be assaulted by cigaret fumes.We now have a larger choice of restaurants as the better ones are now smoke free. The buffet at the Texas Station is almost enjoyable now! I was a bit abrasive toward the judge in the beginning but now realize that he had a difficult time of it. I’m sure there will be a few more gasps of protest from the brown lung group but I believe that most folks will love the benifits of healthier air.
Comment by R Daniels — January 24, 2007 @ 7:11 am
WE LIVE IN LAS VEGAS NOT CALIF. BARS ARE FOR PEOLPE WHO WANT TO GAMBLE,DRINK,SMOKE, AND MUNCH ON FOOD.THEY ARE NOT FOR KIDS.RESTAURANTS ARE FOR FAMILYS TO EAT. NOT BARS AND TAVARNS. I THOUGHT WE LIVED IN THE USA.
Comment by CYNTHIA WIXOM — January 24, 2007 @ 7:22 am
To joe who smokes expecially where it says he can’t, I hope you’re the first one fined. As for me, my last experience in a restaurant was trying to enjoy my meal while someone at the next table in the smoking section kept blowing it my way when he could see I was having trouble breathing. Buy some property out of town and start a smoking club where it can’t hurt anyone. I’ll be at my favorite restaurant, Road Runner, finally being able to enjoy the great food and service without coughing and trying to breathe. Thank You voters of Nevada.
Comment by paul — January 24, 2007 @ 7:27 am
I understanding the smoking ban. I don’t understand the part about no food being served and some taverns closing their kitchens, laying off from 3 to 10 employees and then being able to cater in food. What’s serving food got to do with smoking? Why not just make bars and taverns over 21 establishments?
Comment by Bob — January 24, 2007 @ 8:33 am
I SAY THATS ONE VICTORY. FORGET HOW SMALL. WE NOW HAVE SOMETHING TO BUILD ON. NO SENSE CRYING OVER LOST …
Comment by Frank G.Newsham — January 24, 2007 @ 8:58 am
I applaud the court’s decision to ban smoking. I don’t know why the casino owners and tavern owners want to perpetuate bad health and stinky atmospheres. If an obersation survey were done in a casino, I’m sure it would indicate the majority of players are non-smokers. So many times when out, I hear others either say ‘it stinks in here’ or ‘its not too bad in here yet’. It just takes one cigarette to spoil the fun of everyone in a 50 square foot radius by polluting the air. Myself and thousands like me try to sit by doors or where no one else is playing to avoid the direct inhalation but the stench is always in the air. I have sat in non smoking sections and away from others only to have people sit down next to me and blow smoke right in my face. I used to spend a lot of money in casinos but don’t anymore because I don’t feel safe (from smoke - which is a killer just as bad as being shot or stabbed). The casinos would make a lot more money if non-smokers were protected better. Why can’t the casinos reverse their smoking and non-smoking areas and put a glass wall around it to contain the smoke? Why poison everyone because of others addiction? Smokers would get used to not smoking inside here just as they have everywhere else. Las Vegas is NOT that different. They have security to protect patrons from attack while entering, playing and exiting but not from killer smoke. I don’t get that.
Comment by Marlboro Man — January 24, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
OK-Fine…all you smokers and non-smoking zealots alike..here is how it stands from a business trying to abide by the law and not lose it’s gaming share of the pot. You non-smokers all think you have done the greatest good for society and I while I believe in the premise, the execution of the law will do greater damage to this city than you know. You will turn businesses into lawbreakers that cannot compete with the “bar down the street” that decided to say FU to the law. You will turn guests away at our doors as they will choose to go where their rights have not been taken away. While we all deserve to breathe fresh air, it is also our right to run a business, a business that gets to compete on a level playing field. Why you ask is it unlevel, well if you were a tavern built before 11-92 (Big Dogs, Charlie’s Draft House, Foothills, etc and had a non-restricted gaming license, well now you can “call” yourself a Casino. Please…. I have had all of our regulars beg us not to close our kitchen’s and that is our last intention, but I say to all of you, we EXIST because people like to gamble here with us. Those who gamble, smoke! At each of our 3 locations, 7 of the top ten players are smokers who account for upwards of 35% of weekly gaming revenue. The number drops down to roughly 45% in the top 100 players, but it will take 50 non-smoking regular players to replace seven. So-If you want to “Do the right thing” please support your local bars including “Steiner’s Pub” as this law will greatly effect our business and livelihood as the majority of local bars are flaunting the law, and /or the inequity of us competing with three bars within two miles that can “Eat, Drink, and Smoke” will challenge even the best operators. You voted for it-Now Support it! Thank you!
Comment by Roger Sachs — January 25, 2007 @ 9:38 am
This is great!!!!
I can’t wait until the casinos and non-restrictive bars are also banned from smoking.
It’s just a matter of time!
Comment by John Mastrogiacomo — January 25, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
As a business owner the state now is telling me what I can and cannot do in MY BUSINESS, they do not pay my bills or my taxes, I will comply but will be forced to file BANKRUPCY as now I can not pay my bills or taxes because of lost revenue THANKS CALIFORNIA GO SCREW UP SOMEONE ELSES STATE.
Comment by J.D. — January 26, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
I am a non-smoker, and am against the new law. If you want to live in a place like California, then move back. The state is nearly bankrupt because of its numerous rules and regulations which dictate every part of a person’s life. The non-smoking ban there, started the downward spiral of the economy by putting many, many people out of business. It will do the same here. The ones who will benefit here are the large casinos which are not affected by the ban, and that is the unconstitutional difference between the law here and the one in California. Think about it. If the casinos didn’t want the law, it wouldn’t be in effect. They want it because it helps them since they no longer have to compete with the mom and pop bars. Everyone has to go to a casino now if they want to smoke. Who do you think this hurts? It hurts the small business guy, and will ultimately hurt Nevada’s economy as it did California’s. It is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, because it treats businesses differently. Casinos which serve food can have smoking which attracts gamblers. Other establishments cannot. In California, there was not this unequal treatment. Hopefully, this will go up to the Supreme Court, and be seen for the unconstitional law that it is.
People have flooded here from California because of the poor economy there and lack of jobs. Now, Californians are trying to make Nevada like California. When they achieve their goal, are they going to move to New Mexico next, and leave Nevadans to live with the economic havoc they wreak.
Mandatory recycling will be next, followed by cameras at stop lights that photograph the smallest infraction so that tickets can be mailed to the offenders. Wait and see.
Comment by Sandra Stewart — January 28, 2007 @ 4:06 am
Being a tavern owner I would not mind going non smoking if all establishments that offer gaming went non smoking. But this is not the case. Do you people realize that we will be able to order in or offer prepackaged food and keep smoking? Do you realize the effects this will have on our suppliers and the people who work for them? Can you say increased sales or state taxes to make up for lost revenue from the operations of kitchens in bars? Do any of you realize that most establishments run these at a loss but offer it because of gaming and that a large percentage of our gaming customer base smokes? Either you can smoke in doors or you can’t. Apparently the voters do not care about the 26,000 casino employees and there problems with second hand smoke because you voted for a law that allows this. Shame on all of us for letting something so poorly worded get on a ballot. Shame on the judge for his fence line position on this and as usual the only ones who will get rich are the LAWYERS.
Comment by rokk — January 29, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
I think smokers, in general, are courteous and have been and continue to be much to silent on smoking issues. There are some positive health benefits of smoking to some people, in example, colitis. Some studies have shown that former smokers who develop ulcerative colitis and then go back to smoking experience fewer symptoms. However, smoking itself carries other serious health risks. Many physicians would consider advising patients to take up smoking (or inhaling secondhand smoke) as a treatment for ulcerative colitis unethical.
I think there should be smoking only establishments and non smokers should be banned from these establishments.
Comment by Jerry — February 1, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Not being resident of Las Vegas, I was quite surprised that the airport is now completely smoke free. I can’t say I understand why, as the smoking areas were isolated. It would have been one thing to eliminate the smoking in the bars and so forth in the airport, but I don’t see what the issue was with the enclosed smoking rooms and the partitioned areas with the slot machines. I’ll survive not having a cigarette during this 2 hour layover, but you can count on the fact that I won’t spend one cent on any slot machines in the airport from now on.
Non-smokers absolutely have a right to not be exposed to second hand smoke, but that shouldn’t mean that the even the fully enclosed smoking rooms should have been closed.
I hope someone takes a good hard look at the slots revenues over the next year, as I have no doubt they will take a significant hit from this. I hope the city has to raise taxes because of it, and I hope the non-smokers enjoy that.
Comment by Doug Belkofer — February 10, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
As secondhand smoke is not harmful, smoking bans should not be allowed in the first place (see evidence at http://www.forces.org). Enuf said.
Comment by S.Pannoloni — February 12, 2007 @ 11:09 am
In Nazi Germany it was standard practice to call the goverment and report on what your family and neighbors were doing. Welcome to the new USA. “Hello officer, I would like to report a man smoking a cigarette”.
Comment by Ken — February 13, 2007 @ 5:30 am
I can bearly remmber a time when you could smoke in a grocery store, day care, schools, most stores, business, churches, we could go on! The adds they had out during the elections were so far from the truth I can only shack my head.
Comment by andrea — February 23, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
What part of NON SMOKING they (bar owners)couldn’t understand? They must follow the law. Voters ban smokers…please.
Comment by R. Latorre — February 27, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
All SMOKERS should look at: http://areyouokwiththat.com/home
Comment by J58501 — February 27, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Being a non-smoker myself, I do think that the locals that go to their neighborhood bars that they live by, should have the right to smoke. Having the option of non-smoking, or smoking table wasn’t as bad as everyone seemed to make it. True, it wasn’t very pleasant eating your favorite food while having to inhale smoke. But I would rather have a somewhat sober person rather than a drunk on the road, (due to not being able to eat and soak up some of the alcohol) and causing an accident.
Comment by Khristy — February 28, 2007 @ 4:00 am
I completely understand the no smoking regulations in regards to family style restaurants. But a bar or a tavern is NOT really a place for kids - and that was the tactic used to sell this vote to people.
You are taking away our freedoms one at a time when you allow this type of heavy handed law - it should be up to the business owner to decide how to run his business, and if he wishes to allow a perfectly LEGAL activity (and yes, it is still legal to smoke cigarettes regardless of what some might think) he should be able to.
What’s next - where you can legally pass gas?
Comment by Linda Pardue — February 28, 2007 @ 6:37 am
The Nevada Clean Air Act has been deceiving from the beginning. The voters chose between Question 4 and Question 5 without all of the facts! I feel that this issue needs to be voted on again now that the public has seen the differences between the two.
Comment by Steve Funston — February 28, 2007 @ 6:48 am
It is criminal that so many business owners are so openly violating the law. The Health District needs to create a “fee” that is high enough to deter such blatant non-compliance. The Health District also needs to fine the Casinos that have found a way to use the poor wording of the law to allow smoking in areas where it should be banned. Specifically, the Santa Fe Station Bowling Center is allowing smoking in a bar that is COMPLETELY inside and open to the Bowling Center, (which is classified as a ‘No Smoking’ area). The Santa Fe Station management interprets that since the bar is off limits to minors, it qualifies as part of the Casino floor - PLEEEEEEASE!!!! This is an obvious slap in the face to the voters and to the authors of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, who I’m sure never believed that they would be exposed to second hand smoke at a bowling center snack bar. The bottom line is - the law must be enforced, and the loopholes have to be eliminated!!!
Comment by Jim Odem — February 28, 2007 @ 8:33 am
I’m a smoker and Nevada Law say clean air act, what happen with the childs that have the parents smoke like crazy and they don’t care, are they going to ban the parent to smoke in their houses because of the clean air act?. This is ridiculous, business owner are loosing money because a couple of people that don’t have nothing to do only nag,nag, nag for every little thing that happen in this town. I’m sick and tired of those who don’t do anything for this town and only looking for things to give others problems. thank you!
Comment by iris — February 28, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Like so many others I, a non smoker, believe that the smoking in bars should have been left alone. On those rare occasions that I go to a bar I expect to find smoking. However since the bars were included and the law was passed by the voters then the law needs to be followed by all concerned, bars and patrons.
Comment by Kathleen Kelly — February 28, 2007 @ 10:25 am
I’m a non-smoker and I voted against the ban. The entire premisis is based on false information of second hand smoke. I belive our freedoms are being taken away with using the excuse it’s bad for the children. Why are these concerned adults taking their children into bars that serve food? If they want to live in the Peoples Republic of California they should stay there instead of spoiling our way of living and taking away our freedoms. This ban cost people their jobs and business owners to lose customers and money. Las Vegas is a different kind of city if they don’t like it they should live elsewhere.
Comment by Jo Ann Bachran — February 28, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
The smoking ban is long overdue. Not only have many US cities banned smoking, but many European countries as well. This ban will benefit the population as a whole as people will not have to endure secondhand smoke in workplaces, restaurants and places of entertainment.
Comment by Susan — February 28, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
If you don’t like smoking go to a non-smoking establishment! End of story!
Comment by Michelle — February 28, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
I am a smoker. As far as I know, cigarettes are legal and smoking them is legal in designated areas of certain taverns.
I’ve spoken with several tavern owners who cannot get a straight answer from the Health Dept and, because of the confusion, are allowing smoking where they think they can.
Is there some sort of lethal consiquence to smoking, gambling and eating? Some tavern owners have closed their kitchens. Some are still open and only allow food to go for smokers. What is wrong here?
Smokers understand that some people don’t like the smell of smoke, and are willing to compromise. Non smokers have to have it their way only!!
If a tavern owner has a customer base of smokers, why shouldn’t he be able to allow smoking and eating in his tavern, as long as he also has a non-smoking area? Again, the answer is because the non smokers will not compromise. They only want it their way.
Additionally, if large casino’s are exempt, it semms to me that we are favoring one group of people over another, which is clearly unconstitutional.
This is the most confusing law ever passed by any state and will certainly be repealed in the next election.
Comment by Steve — February 28, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Dear readers, this is a very sad time in our life, with all the killings in the us and over in other countries, but manily with our brothers and sisters serving in the war getting killed and injured. This isn’t our war,we shouldn’t be there… Now about this stupid non smoking billlll. It stinks, I dena was born and raised here in las Vegas in a town that was free, where people had respect for one another, we all said good moring to our neighbors and people passing us.Years have passed since those days but being a native of my state NEVADA people that are coming here by the bushels haven’t a clue of what LAS VEGAS stands for We the people of las vegas are proud, considerate towards other peoples feelings,BUT/// We are FREE here & I don’t like people that haven’t a clue about being a real native coming into MY city and dictating to me and my fellow native’s what we should do and not do.
I’m a smoker working on quiting,but this is my right to choose for my self, not for my children,friends,siblings, Las vegas is the capital of the united states that stands for freedom and the right to smoke or drink when and where we would like. NOW i have ate in a resturant many of times in the non smoking section out of respect for others with no problem doing so, So just back the f off of all of us natives please, your not big enough to tell me what to do..
The main reason that I’m writing this stupid letter to you stupid people is that I would like to have everyones support on this solution. They say that they are going to give me a big fine If I’m caught smoking in a plubic place, ok I haven’t got a problem with that I can afford it being a native I’ve lived smart and wise. What I suppose is that all of the monies that they (health dept) aquire be sent to one different school every month for the kids that don’t have a back pack or other school supplies, as a native of las vegas every year and x-mas time I go and spend lots of money for supplies and clothes for the less unfortunate children in our valley, I think that they should also make a point of putting these monies they have recieved in the newspaper and on the news at the beginning of each month and stating which school they have donated the monies too.
BUT DO YOUR REALLY THINK THEY ARE GONNA TAKE THE CHANCE OF NOT RECIEVING ANY OF THE MONEY FOR THEIR POCKETS AND EXSPENSES THAT THEY CLAIM, WHAT A CROCK OF S///////////
I’m going to the meeting today thurs 1st of march to syand up for my native rights, hope you can come,cause i’d love to talk to you in person. the meeting is at the shadowlane health district from 2-4pm
Thank you very much,
Dena/basso
Comment by Dena — March 1, 2007 @ 9:12 am
It’s about time we got tough on this matter. I’m sick of going out to eat and smelling somke even after the law was passed. They should fine the owner of the resturant if the law is broken only then will it stop.
Comment by Dale Matz — March 1, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
What many business owners fighting to advocate this smoking ban fail to realize is that 53.9% of Nevadans voted FOR this Clean Indoor Air Act. There is no pupose in passing a law but not enforcing it. The new proposal of fining the individual an additional $600 on top of the initial $100 fee is definitely appropriate. Fines should also be imposed on the business owner as well for not abiding the new law. There has been statements made by smokers such as, “If you don’t like the smoke, don’t go to that bar.” Non-smokers who can appreciate healthy lungs should not have to scurry to another establishment so that smokers are given the advantage of going to any bar he/she wishes. Non-smokers should not be limited to which bar he/she chooses to attend. The smell of smoke on clothing, hair, and stains of age-old smoke left on walls is revolting. A clean smoke-free environment benefits everyone and everyTHING.
Comment by Linna King — March 1, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
How many smokers voted this past election?? If the majority of “smokers” are also gamblers and they all voted then how did question 5 pass??? quit complaining and smoke outside!!! Smokers and gamblers have to get up to go to the bathroom, you can get your lazy butt up to go smoke. If all you smokers want to kill yourself with cigarettes and get lung cancer go ahead in THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME/CAR OR OUTSIDE. Many other people (lets see almost the entire USA has no smoking in restaurants or bars) want to live their life with out SECOND HAND SMOKE!. There needs to be some sort of penalty to all the establishments that are promoting smoking by handing out cups or giving out their own personal lighters/matches for patrons to smoke. It is an absolute disgrace how DISRESPECTFUL American People are to others and to the LAW!!!
Comment by kk — March 1, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Re: “what happen with the childs that have the parents smoke like crazy and they don’t care, are they going to ban the parent to smoke in their houses because of the clean air act?. ”
What a person does in his/her own home is in that person’s private interest. A bar/tavern is not your private home. Having disregard for the safety of other individuals’ health and welfare is equivalent to reckless driving. If a driver was excessively changing lanes without using signals at a high speed, cutting you off, causing you fear for your safety out on the busy roads and blatantly displaying disregard for your safety, wouldn’t you want some type of enforcement to prohibit that? Luckily, there IS a law prohibiting that and 8 points applied his/her driving record. Because of that type of enforcement and consequential action, you are given the right to a safer driving environment. Granted, we can’t cite every single reckless driver because we aren’t all police officers nor do we have the right to cite each other while out on the road. But you can rest assured that if it was seen by a police officer, the reckless driver would immediately be cited. So saying that we should ignore secondhand which clearly presents a disregard for nonsmokers’ health and welfare, is also saying we should let reckless drivers continuously behave that way and not face the consequences.
Comment by Linna King — March 1, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Now some people want to make Tavern Owners responsible for smokers…when did we vote on this?
For those of you that don’t get the point…here it is one more time…it is not fair to be selective in the banning of smoking indoors and it is outrageous that Nevadans allow some tricky politics to push this bill through. Don’t think for a moment that it will last, it will continue to be challenged year after year until it is corrected…it is a bad bill/law.
By arguing about wether people should smoke or not smoke in a tavern, you are doing exactly what these manipulative politicians want you to do….pushing the wrong point..
Imagine a law that affected your business or place of employment and did not affect your direct competition…so they benefited by taking your customers and you could no longer service them…
Come on Nevadans…we are smarter than that…right ?
Additionally, don’t expect to pay that
$16.95 for a full steak and potato meal with a couple of drinks any more..that price will now go up to $ 40.00. Gaming offsets the price of food in local taverns much more than it does in Strip Casinos..
There is a compromise, one that will benefit smokers and non-smokers…but lets not let ourselves buy into someone else’s fight by overlooking what’s fair and what’s not…otherwise we just become a a bunch of flunkies for someone else..and end up indirectly supporting their goals instead of our own.
Nevadans should demand fair and equitable laws that will stand the test of time..this is way below us…and we are buying into it.
Comment by Jerry — March 4, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
We seem content with fighting among ourselves about who should have voted and how everyone has rights about smoking. This should make some politicians very happy with how they have herded us right into their corral.
I read an interesting point about how smokers should have been out voting instead of sitting on their backsides and complaining about ” rights ” .
It was interesting, but doesn’t hold water.
Here is why..
If all of the employees in exempt locations went to vote against smoking in their place of work…topless bars, casinos, brothels…they would not represent enough votes to carry a law that prohibits smoking in their workplace. Which means the very people we are trying to protect…Nevadans..had no real say in what the outcome was…or is.
So now, we have to deal with the issue of exemption, and discrimination against our brother and sister Nevadans that work in those exempt locations…they are much more likely to have a serious second hand smoke health problem than someone who chooses to slip into a tavern once a month to have dinner. As soon as one of these employees steps forward and claims…you protected other Nevadans but you did not protect me..it becomes a big issue…as it well should.
Bad Bill, Bad Law, Bad Politics
Lets make these same politicians go back and do their job right…that is why we elected them in the first place.
Comment by Jerry — March 8, 2007 @ 9:07 am
I was at a bar the other day and someone around me was smoking, I was so offended, I wanted to move to California. All you people that are whining about people smoking in bars need to get a life. Go back home eat your twinkies and your Cokes and go back to watching General Hospital. Stay out of bars we don’t want you.
Comment by Derek — March 12, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
stop stop the somking The smoking ban is long overdue OK-Fine…all you smokers
Comment by jim — March 13, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
What amazes me is the logic of people supporting the ban. They complain of the smoke and whine about the supposedly dangerous effects. Don’t they realize that they were the ones exposing themselves to it?
I mean seriously, if smoking bothers you that much, why don’t you avoid places that permit it? You’ve got no right to be in a bar. You are there because the owner allows you to be.
Mark my words, when socialism comes to our country, it will come wearing a stethoscope.
Comment by M. Chris — March 13, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
Re: Who’s watching the County Health Dept?
Who gave them the right to add an “admin fee” to Question 5? We did not vote for this.
The Voter’s Guide indicated there would be “NO” fiscal impact with passage of #5 except for “non-smoking” signs. Already, the gov’t has paid legal fees to defend the law, they’ve printed up thousands of brochures & letters to bar owners, now they want to hire more people to enforce the law. More $$$ we will have to pay.
A local bar owner told me last weekend that a Health Inspector told him that if they ever found a smoker inside his bar they would fine the smoker AND lower the bar’s food rating from an “A” to a “C” because they could. This is NOT in the law and is more power than intended.
Who’s overseeing this Dept? They feel all-powerful now and are making up rules as they go along. The Health Dept doesn’t know how to be an enforecement agency. How can they be controlled?
If anyone wanted to get a fair representation of the County voters, they would have had Question 5 on the ballot in a presidental-year election instead of the smaller off-year election when most of the voters are elderly.
It seems to me the Health Dept. is all excited about their new-found popularity. Power corrupts and someone needs to reel these guys in so they themselves follow the new law exactly as written and approved.
Who knows how they’re bending the rules in other areas of their dept.
Comment by Donna — March 15, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
watch out law breaking smokers!! if i see anyone breaking this smoking ban in the many local bars i frequent, i will return your rudeness with a blast of my sick, putrid,toxic and sometimes wet flatulence as physically close to you as humanly possible!! i am warning you now, please smoke outside or in your home or car, not in public places, or i will be forced to unleash the unholy scent from my bowels upon you and everyone like you!! peace out d-bags!
Comment by elihu smails — March 23, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
My local bar has done what all bars should do. They closed in the food section. Then they closed in the restrooms. Now smokers can smoke in peace and then go to the bathroom from the bar. Meanwhile non smokers can leave thru the front door and go around the building and enter thru the back door if they need to use the bathrooms. (WHILE THEY CARRY A KEY ATTACHED TO A LONG WOODEN STICK) Just the thought of them getting all that 120 degree fresh air makes me smile. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
Comment by Ken Brown — March 27, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
See ya in court is what we have to say. There has not been a single citation issued because when they do they will be taken to court and lose. They are trying to issue demerits when they cant find anyone smoking in a location, guess what, see you in court. One guy had 50 complaints registered by one person. Could this be a competitor, disgruntled employee, guess what? See you in court again. One inspector said that you had to remove your restaurant equipment, sse you in court. Do not remember that in the bill. Right now it is on appeal with the Supreme Court, hopefully someone up there has the balls to correct this terribly written bill. Like I said in a post earlier only the Lawyers are going to get rich.
Comment by rokk — April 8, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Re: Smoking Ban
Why is the County Health Dept. restricting smoking on OUTDOOR patios? Isn’t it the Clean INDOORS Act? They’re going too far and making up the law as they go on. Four restaurant/bars I visited recently told me the County said NO smoking on the property - both indoors and indoors.
Comment by Donna Noll — April 23, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Hey, looks like a totally new industry has sprung up due to the bans. Look at this, must be a new site ‘cos theres not much in it yet, if this catches on with hotel owners it could be real useful, wonder why they don’t list bars though? http://www.smokingwelcome.com
Talk about Zagging when everyone else Zigs.
Comment by Ian — April 25, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Question 5 was written by lobbyists and supported by the Nevada Resort Association. These hotels,as we all know,support our entire states economy. The tavern industry has exploded in the last 15 years in southern nevada bringing a new thrust to small business and putting thousands of nevadans to work. The tavern industry has also caught the attention of the hotels as “lost” gaming revenue. Locals were preferring the friendly service,great food and local play they do not receive at hotels. The citizens of Nevada were unfortunately duped into thinking that they were part of something positive as “clean air” when this bill was all about greed from the start.
A smoking ban,as they call it,will never work if some places are allowed and some are not merely by status of gaming licenses. What do the differences in licenses have to do with clean air? This is what the gaming taverns are concerned about.
If question 5 were a total statewide ban where you could not smoke anywhere indoors including casinos, I would have voted for that. The casinos would have no part of such a bill because as they have said in a recent article in the RJ that they would lose gaming revenue. Imagine that!
Question 5 was never about clean air for Nevadans. Maybe for some,but not for others. In the future,Nevada, please be more careful of who you vote for and what you vote for. It would have saved us all from this kind legislative lunacy.
Comment by Bob — April 30, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Life is too short to cut it shorter. Live smoke free!
Comment by Sandra S. — April 30, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
I’m sick and tired of the whining of the bar owners who think that they are above the law and their greed driven shiester lawyers who are only interested in lining their pockets.This was the will of the people not “big brother”. During the last election cycle these bar owners even tried to put up a smoke screen with proposition 4 but the voters were too intelligent to buy into their garbage. Now they are tapping into the talk radio circuit by looking for support from the pinheads who like to hear themselves talk but refuse to listen. They are extremely lucky. The law should have been written in such a manner that if they refuse to comply, they lose their gaming and liquor licences. Look at Crazyhorse II that is the kind of penalty that they should be facing. If you don’t like the law and don’t want to comply to the wishes of the majority of the population, sell out and leave Nevada and take your lawyers with you. We have enough thieves and liars in this state, a few less won’t hurt my feelings.
Comment by Jeff Savlov — May 4, 2007 @ 8:11 am
I have flat out ignored the smoking ban in resturants and bars.. the places I go have either chose to ignore it or dont dare say anything for fear of losing customers.
Its a fake law, no one can enforce it. The people dont want it and it has lost.
They could make the find 10,000 and 10 years in jail and most would ignore it.
Comment by Gorgo — May 4, 2007 @ 8:18 am
I got no problem with no smokeing in Resturants , But no smokeing in bars is just nuts. I wish the nonsmokers would just shut the hell up.
This is Vegas, See what happens when
people move here from other parts of the country and take over.. This is not Calf, if you don’t like the way things are here , LEAVE!!!!!!
Comment by Rick Anderson — May 4, 2007 @ 9:04 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The people who voted for the ban are a bunch of morons. The people who patronize the bars for more than a cheap meal are the drinking, gambling, smoking people. The non-smokers are the ones who whine about not being able to get cheap food in a smoke free environment.
I’ve interviewed a few of my non-smoking friends about what they think and they have ALL said that finally they can eat in a place that’s smoke free. When I ask how much money they’ll put into the machines, they look at me like a deer caught in headlights, and say something like 20 or 40 dollars maybe. GMAB. Tavern owners will all go belly up.
Stupid, idiotic, sancimonious, holier than thou people are going to bankrupt Nevada.
Comment by CM — May 4, 2007 @ 11:15 am
If the Health District would treat smoking in an establishment licensed to serve food the same as any other activity that is dirty, i.e. cockroaches, dirty kitchen, unclean employess, foul smells, etc…, they could revoke the food preparation licenses of offending establishments; then the patrons could smoke all they want to, because food would not be served. Sounds like an easy fix to me.
Comment by Jim Odem — May 4, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Hey Ken Brown where is your bar located cause by the sounds I’d LOVE to visit your place - bars and smoking go hand in hand, sorry, and cigarettes are still legal (although I’m sure there are already many persons as we speak trying to get them to be banned soon that would be the next step) so to me anyone that allows someone to do something legal and even goes so far as to accommodate them, I’d spend money there. And if it isn’t in my neck of the woods I will be more than happy to spread the word to make sure everyone I know knows about the place! Thanks for doing the right thing and fighting those Casino conglomerates and lobbyists!
Comment by perki — May 4, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Over the past 10 years Nevada has turned into a dump due to all the trash moving in from places like CA & NJ.
Comment by dennis — May 4, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
We absolutely need the SMOKING BAN discussions to occupy our time at channel 8 et al.
Without this directed focus away from issues like only a few commissioners not yet in jail, a school system the takes money and provides no certified audit, a hospital that gives my money to illegals, and a myriad of directed media to other directions, we stuck with the Smoking issue generated by the Republic of California who now treats Las Vegas as its surburb.
It could of course be possible as a public service announcement that says that if you don’t like smoke, don’t go in, if you don’t like pigs and bacon go back to your mosque, if you don’t like high gas prices take a bus — woops, forget we don’t have money for roads for busses and places to park as all that money went to the children and the cigarett price increase years ago of $10 per carton goes to the illegals or stupid children trained by our school system.
Wake up Nevada
Comment by Stuart Ervin — May 4, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
We need to make this a local issue rather than a state issue. By and large the votes to ban smoking came from rural and northern Nevada. So did the votes for Jim Gibbons. If it were up to us locally the Governor would be Titus and the smoking issue would be dead a long time ago. We need to overturn this law and make our representatives MAKE it a local issue, not state wide.
Comment by Revrend Steve — May 4, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
I am getting very tired of the media dragging the tavern owners through the mud on a daily basis with their slighted and negative bias. The tavern owners are just as much a part of the southern nevada business landscape as any other business that pays its taxes and puts thousands of nevadans to work. Many taverns are actively involved with Better Business,Chamber of Commerce and also provide local support to charities with fundraising. Tavern owners are also business people that are subject to all requirements that involve the priviledge to maintain gaming licenses. This includes all matters such as metro investagtions and audits regularly to be sure that they may retain that priviledge. Not every businessman can qualify for the scrutiny of a gaming license. However,along with maintaining the priviledge of the license, their should be protection from anti trust legislation that was placed in the form of question 5.
I appeal to the voting citizens of southern Nevada to be patient with the tavern owners and the health department in the enforcement of this bill that was introduced by the resort association on the november ballot in its efforts to claim its stake on “all gaming revenues” and put the tavern owners into financial hardship.
It seems that no one cares about the fact that you may still smoke in casinos,light up in strip clubs and enjoy a nice smoke in a bordello. But oh, those dirty tavern folk. We need to do something about them like confront owners and employees with cameras and damaging commentary. The spirit of this law was compromised by greed and not clean air. That is the sad part. This law will be challenged by the tavern owners with lawsuits and appeals the next couple of months and we will see what turns out. If the law was written to abolish smoking in any indoor facility,this would have been a different matter. Unfortunately, that measure would never appear on your ballot in care of your resort association.
Comment by bob — May 6, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Jeff Savlov’s message: Close the bars down! Run them out of the state!
Just like you flew like a locust from CA because its economy was destroyed by you and the people that lived there. Your self importance is mind blowing. These buisness support our local economy.
Just a Question: If we voted that all coffee shops that used white paper napkins could’nt sell coffee, because we love the green paper napkins at starbucks. Would you then see this as a stupid law.
THE LAW IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Wether you smoke or not, wether you like smoke or not. It is the fact that the law was ill written.
Try the Kopper Keg on Durango and 95 Perki.
Comment by Ken — May 8, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Your health dept. is suing a bar owner over a $200 citation. Do any of you realize how much money the health dept is wasting. Gaming revenue is down 50-70% in grocery and convience stores. Who do you think is going to pick up the tab on that one. By the way, you can still eat, drink and smoke in my bar. We just order food from a local pizza joint and have it delivered, which by the way increases consumption of gas, causes more polution and traffic and cost the customer more. Yep this is a great law.
Comment by rokk — May 21, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
The Nevada Clean Indoor Act did NOT ban smoking in bars!!!!!
It banned smoking in RESTAURANTS NOT BARS.
So quit whining that the people of Nevada banned smoking in bars. If you are going to whine and complain about a law then you had better actually read the thing before any complaints are logged.
Here is an excerpt from the actual law…
Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, smoking tobacco in any form is prohibited within indoor places of employment including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Child care facilities;
(b) Movie theatres;
(c) Video arcades;
(d) Government buildings and public places;
(e) Malls and retail establishments;
(f) All areas of grocery stores; and
(g) All indoor areas within restaurants.
2. Without exception, smoking tobacco in any form in prohibited within school buildings and on school property.
3. Smoking tobacco is NOT prohibited in:
(a) Areas within casinos where loitering by minors is already prohibited by state law pursuant to NRS 463.350;
(b) STAND ALONE BARS TAVERNS AND SALOONS;
(c) Strip clubs or brothels;
(d) Retail tobacco stores;
…..
Get it, Smoking is NOT banned in bars.
So what is going to happen if the restaurants, posing as bars, such as PT’s and Bilbo’s continue to ignore the Law? Allowing smoking in bars will be taken away!!!
The very people you smokers think are helping ypu by ignoring the law are proving they cannot self police, so kiss smoking indoors goodbye unless they quit screwing around with the law.
Right now the law allows places for smokers and nonsmokers. However the violators are making it so smokers do not have a place to go.
Try really hard to think about it. Do you really think the law is going to go away? Has it gone away ANYWHERE in America? Will it really just go away here in Nevada? No it is here to stay. The only question left is do you want the exemptions for bars to stay or do you want the exemption to go away?
Those places violating the laws are the very people who are harming your choices. Stop complaining, take a drag and think about it for a second. Maybe then you will realize what is truley going on with those violating the law.
Comment by John McDonnell — June 6, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
The voters passes a law to prohibit smoking. What is the issue? There are signs all over town that tell me what the maximum speed I can drive without getting a ticket is. What if I don’t agree with what those signs say, should I be able to ignore that without any penalty?
I say start random inspections and when a violation is found fine the bar owner $20,000.00. I bet we would have compliance with the law that the voters of Nevada have passed.
I used to be a loyal patron of Village Pub, but since I found out that they are one of the groups fighting the law that I voted for I have not returned to any of their establishments.
If you agree with the ban, then boycott the bars that refuse to enforce the law we all passed.
Comment by Mark — June 6, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Wasn’t the smoking ban first introduced to keep “children” away from the harmful effect caused by second hand smoke? That’s what we were told and what all the “do gooders” voted on. I personnally don’t like to eat where it’s smokey, but the real question is, “why are children in bars, anyway?” They should be forbidden to enter a bar, period. If the parents want to take the kids out for a meal, go to Marie Calanders or Mimi’s. If you want to smoke and play video poker and slots and kill yourself, pick a bar, any bar.
Comment by Gil — June 6, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Smoking is legal. Our forebears smoked their hearts out. Bars and Lounges have a specific locale where it is legal to drink and smoke. If you don’t like to drink and smoke go someplace else!! How hard can that be?? Don’t trample on other people’s rights. Find something that makes sense to you that doesn’t stick other people’s rights, that won’t hurt you. If you have the intelligence to go do your own hang out that makes you feel good, just do it. Your IQ should make you able to find the right place. Still can’t find it? Go to idiot.com and get help.
Comment by Rich — June 6, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Ok..so now you want to pick and choose the laws you want to abide by. Get real! If you NEED to smoke, do it in a bar..not a restaurant.
If you disagree with a law, go through proper channels to repeal or change the law. Don’t act like idiots with comments like “It’s my right!”
Obviously, it no longer is.
Comment by Dan — June 6, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
smoking is rude…disrespectful and disgusting…wanna kill yourself? do it on your own time in your own house…non-smokers do not appreciate your ignorance…smoking is a slow suicide..go to NY or cali….try smoking there…be greatful that nevada even has smoking areas for the ignorant ones…i have no respect for smokers because they dont have respect for themselves…..its that easy….so quit your cryin and go outside and kill yourself…i/we value our remaining years spent alive
Comment by tony — June 6, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
The smoking ban was introduced to keep the children & kids safe. WHY the hell are your kids in a BAR to begin with. What’s next, “your papers please comrad!”?
The smoking ban is just another way for these Cali-liberals that keep moving here to get away from California to make Nevada just like “home”.
Comment by j — June 7, 2007 @ 6:55 am
i say ignore the law! everyone in las vegas seems to ignore all laws! this town has become a ********, the people are losers,the prices are to high, the place stinks of corruption. your water supply will soon dry up retards, move out now!! las vegas will dry up and blow away just like the piece of ****that it has become!!
Comment by al czervik — June 7, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Some of you must have been the ones that voted for this ignorant law.
Mark wonders: what if people started ignoring the posted speed limits. Are you the one who actually drives the speed limit? Are you the one who actually stops at a red light? Silly little man.
Mr. Mcdonnell thinks that bars are not effected by this law. WOW. There are only a couple of bars in this town, the rest are taverns that serve both food and drink. I didnt read anything about taverns but they somehow got the shaft on this one. These places make little or no profit on thier food, serve it 24 hours a day and it is usually better than what you get at a one of those resturants where smoking was not allowed in the first place. Why dont you start reading between the lines.
Comment by Ken — June 7, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Try this website for the facts on second hand smoke and how many cities have repealed laws similiar to this one. Also how much financial impact laws like this one have on a city. http://www.davidhitt.com
Comment by Ken — June 7, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
I love the opinions of you Nevada folk and how you are blaming the smoking law on the California pests that have migrated to your state, mostly cause it’s true.
It’s good to see that not EVERYONE behaves like sheep. The law was passed for a specific reason like everyone understands (to prevent children from second hand smoke) and this in addition creates a unique situation: the OPTION of smoking and nonsmoking establishments in the state of Nevada. And let’s not forget that options are what make a democracy.
If minors are not allowed in an establishment, then there should be no reason for smoking to not be allowed since this apparently is not what Nevada residents voted on.
Also how easy is it for these Californians to get Nevada resiency anyway? Maybe that should be something that needs to be banned!
Comment by Alexander — June 7, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
It’s so sad to see people actually lobby for the right to smoke cigarettes in the presence of others. The world is not obligated to make nicotine addicts feel good about their addiction. You must now go sit in the corner or in your own personal space to do your drugs, just like every other drug addict has to do. To make others suffer so that you can smoke in public and not feel like a 2nd-class citizen is ridiculous.
No one is telling a smoker they can’t smoke either, they just can’t smoke at the expense of others. I promise the smokers of the world that I will always fight for your right to smoke cigarettes, or any other stupid thing you want to do, however, you just can’t do IT, or anything else that infringes on the rights of others. You don’t have the right to hurt anyone but yourself, and you must pay for the damage that you knowingly do to yourself. You can eat as much fatty foods as you want and can get as obese as you want, but you can’t go around sitting on people. You can drink as much alcohol as you want, but you can’t drive drunk or throw your empty bottles at people. The Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act was not passed to just protect kids, it was passed because it has been proved beyond any doubt, that smoking, and secondhand smoke hurts and kills people, more importantly, innocent people.
If you believe the bar owners are looking out for “your rights” by breaking the law, and allowing you to break the law, you’re an idiot. They are as addicted to your money, as you are your drugs. Have you ever seen anyone fight for the right, or to argue the right to allow someone else to continue using lead based paint, or to use asbestos, or any other non-addictive banned product? The answer is of course no. Don’t you smokers get it? The only thing that really matters, is that it’s the law as voted on by the people of Nevada. We allowed you to hurt us and our loved ones, including your loved ones for years, because it was legal, now it isn’t, period.
FYI: I am not from California, I drive an SUV, I am not a Liberal, and I want every law-abiding citizen to own and carry a gun (with the exception of drug addicts, whether their drug of choice is legal or not). If you’re a drug addict, just remember, it’s a choice. When you decide that you no longer want to be addicted to nicotine, you will stop putting nicotine in your body.
Love, Dr. Good.
Comment by Dr. Good — June 8, 2007 @ 1:53 am
Most tavern owners have given question 5 a 60 day trial and have found out something they new all along. Business was down 30- 40 percent. They just dont have a new group of non smoking players lined up to take their place. So, bars are back to smoking at video machines,constructing walls,closing kitchens,separating food and liquor licenses,plastic plateware and even going outside to come back inside to go to the bathroom. The taverns will find a way to get around this law the resort association sponsored and will prevail.
FYI….please non smokers,do not be offended when they ask you to leave with your smoking complaint of a player. It is ok, you can go applebees,mimis or tweetys for pete sake…..just go…
Comment by bob — June 8, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
I am a reformed smoker (over 20 years), but have friends and family who smoke. It is a personal choice just like many others that are not so good for us. I think the city/county should SELL “Smoking Licenses” to bars, etc., who want their patrons to be able to light up. Then the city/county can use the money from licenses and renewals to take care of the air. The people who don’t want to be around smoke can go to the places who don’t want to purchase a license. Makes sense in more than one way!
Comment by Donna Schulhauser — June 9, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
I have decided not to go to vegas for my 2 weeks vacation BECAUSE OF THE NO SMOKING LAW
VEGAS SHOULD MAKE EVERY CUSTOMER HAPPY NOT JUST THE NONSMOKERS THEY COULD HAVE SMOKING AND NON SMOKING SECTIONS IN ALL RESTAURANTS AND SMOKING AND NON SMOKING ROOMS IN HOTELS THATS WHAT MANY OTHER CITIES DO ! OH WELL I GUESS I SPEND MY CASH IN A PLACE THAT ACTUALLY WANTS IT 
Comment by ANNI — June 13, 2007 @ 11:25 am
I believe that smoking should be legal and it’s an individuals choice to smoke or not to smoke. However, given the toxic and deadly nature of smoking and the equally deadly fumes created, there should be some sort of licensing requirement to handle such hazardous chemicals. ETS (environment tobacco smoke) has now been classified by the EPA as a known human carcinogen, equivalent to asbestos and other similar substances.
It seems as though a minimum IQ (intelligence quotient) requirement be established for individuals to posess cigarettes. I recommend the minimum IQ to be 7 (lucky 7).
Comment by Dr. Good — June 19, 2007 @ 11:07 am
I am a tavern owner. I am a smoker.
There is a lot of recent activity on this issue and I would like to comment. Some people seem to be stuck on the fact that this issue is based upon weather or not people should smoke..and in doing so, put other people in harms way. It is hard to argue for the merits of smoking. I’m not sure there are any.
This entire issue is not about weather people should smoke or not, it is about being selective in where they are allowed to smoke. I have seen comments that tavern owners are crying because they are losing 40% of their customers…where do you think they are going ? Casinos, topless bars and brothels…they are exempt from this law.
Other people have used posted speed limits as an example..a good one. Posted speed limits are are for EVERYONE….not just a select few. What if rich people that drove white cars could drive as fast as they want..and you had to pull over if you saw one coming to let them pass…get the point.
One person wants to fine bar owners $ 20,000 for not pulling over….really ?
Another person wants tavern owners, like me, to stop serving food so that customers could drink and smoke…think about that statement..no food, lots of drinks and send them out on their merry way….maybe to find you or someone you care for at some intersection going 90 miles an hour…who is in harms way then. Along with this, they want me to put my entire kitchen staff out of work…really ?
We can’t blame Californians for this stupid and discriminatory law..California passed a law that says you can’t smoke anywhere…a level playing field for everyone. We can’t even blame Nevadans for this shameful act. Nevadans were duped into this law by being intentionally confused and tricked by some of our beloved politians, who, in fact, drive white cars.
We are all a lot smarter than this, getting pulled into this concentric circle of weather one should smoke or not…the issue at hand is can we be selective and fair at the same time when dealing with this issue..and we cannot. Tavern owners are not looking for favoratism, they are looking for fairness.
Comment by Jerry — June 21, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
What ever happened to freedoms in our America? I am a veteran and a former bar owner. My bar went out of business in California because of it’s no smoking law. I fully agree that smoking should not be allowed near children, office buildings, or restaurants. It is not always the rights of the consumer that are the issue. What about the rights of the business owner? If I say I allow legal events to be practiced in my business and that offends you, you as the consumer can take your business elsewhere. What about creating a smoking license? Posting on the door “SMOKING ALLOWED INSIDE, ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK”. If you don’t want to come in, DON’T! But, if it is MY business and I want to allow a legal act of smoking to happen…..THAT IS MY RIGHT! Between 14 and 20% of the population smokes depending on the poll that you see. However, 60 to 80% of the bar goers are smokers! I realize that there are some exemptions in this confusing law. I just hope you don’t do what California did and run a lot of small businesses out of business! Freedoms should be something that the business owners should have some say in, not just patrons.
Comment by Paul — June 22, 2007 @ 3:07 am
i think this smoking is unfair to the owners its there living and they have a right too make a living,and if dont like the smoke no one forces u in too that buissness. and the people that want clean air did you give up ur cars and bbqs. at times i got too work in cal and i know cigg smoke didnt turn the air out side brown and breathing that air can not be healhy so if its clean air we want lets get it right and ban every thing that polluutes the air. and what would what happen if smokes didnt drive would they have the right too tell u non smoker they should ban ur cars and bbqs
Comment by james — June 23, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
PAAALEASE!! These tavern owners are trying to scare the public by saying that food can sober up a person that has been drinking, FALSE!! Only time can do that. If you want to become a smoking establishment close your kitchen, it’s that simple. Your arguments are weak @ best!
Comment by joe — June 26, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Lets take a vote…from tavern owner’s only..who have some experience in the area of serving food with drink…
If you are eating….you ARE slowing down the process…..Yes/No
If you are not eating…NOTHING is slowing down the process.
Shame on all you Tavern owners that are trying to scare the public…
Comment by Jerry — June 27, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
i have read all of these comments, most of them are moronic. i suggest reading the posts from “dr.good”, they make these other people seem retarded.
Comment by joeseph taylor — July 31, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
So Metro has know become the smoking police. Really, they have time to do this. If metro wastes manpower on this the sheriff needs to be fired!!!!!!!
Comment by JIm — August 15, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
10 to 1 says our next ballot asks voters to vote for a tax hike in order to hire more police. BECAUSE - You voted for a stupid law.
The best thing about all this, is that after the police and the health official spend an hour or two on processing paperwork, and the court system spends an hour or two processing this crimminal and doing paperwork. We get a hundred bucks back. That is until all the lawyers figure out they can plea down the cost to $25 for a small nominal fee.
Smoke em if ya got em.
Comment by Ken — August 15, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
It’s about time!!! Ticket the smokers who think that a law passed by the people does not affect them. Businesses that allow smokers to break the law should face double fines.
Comment by Bob — August 15, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
The smoking ban is long overdue, the odor problem aside, cigarette smoke causes a variety of cancers to smokers and non-smokers alike and therefore needs to be banned in all public places. Also, building owners should realize that cigarette smoke does not disappear into thin air, instead it collects on the walls, ceiling, furniture, etc. Because of this, propietors have to pay more to clean up their places to prevent it from becoming a pig sty. Smoking is a losing propisition for everyone and this is why it deserves to banned.
Comment by Wayne Ellis — August 15, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
I JUST THINK PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SMOKE ANYWHERE, WHY PUT OTHERS WHO DON’T SMOKE IN DANGER!!!!
Comment by Mary Beth Muscatello — August 15, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Smoking tickets - great news. As we reduce the number of smokers, we reduce the number of jobs, we reduce the amount of tax dollars Harry and Hillary have, we reduce the money to sick smokers now diverted to the “children” and we of course reduce the population as more people go without jobs and join others in foreclosures and of course, the best of all is the Live Entertainment Tax is not collected as our guests all go elsewhere.
Brilliant folks - we’ll see Las Vegas revert to the early 80s when less than 500,000 were here and the majority legal US residents.
With 50,000 new hotel rooms empty, lets spend more time finding the next commissioner we can send to jail.
Comment by stuart mitchell — August 15, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
If the legislature is going to invade our personal lives lets give it a really good try and ban swearing, alcohol and rude behavior–including sagging jeans. They can take their smoking ban and file it under ‘invasion of personal rights’ But I’m glad all those children in the bars won’t be afflicted.
Comment by Susan — August 15, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
I think the smoking ban is wonderful! I can now eat at a Bar/Restaurant and I can leave the place without smelling like an ashtray.
Comment by Marisa — August 15, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
I am disgusted by this. The California minded individual and the small minded have completely infiltrated this valley. It is my right to smoke regardless of consequence. Yes, there should be limitations and smokers should be courteous of other but not as stringent as this. The small businesses that are suffering because of this. People are losing their jobs. People do not THINK about their actions thoroughly. This very thing is what is chipping away at our individual freedoms? The majority was wrong!! They did not look deeper into this. The people are always expected to conform to what the majority believe’s. That is the failure of a free society. There needs to be something for everyone.
This is Las Vegas after all! Was never intended to be a city for families with kids. There is a reason why this is known as Sin City. We are America’s version of Amsterdam. The corporate push of the last few years will never change this perception.
Very sad.
Comment by Shawn — August 15, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Im a smoker and I have never smoked in areas where smoking is not allowed. However now that all the adult places no longer allow me to make any choices I choose not to patronize them. These new laws save me a ton of money since I will not spend money where I am not welcome and do not care to pay for an expensive meal while listening to somebodys unruly children disturbing my space.
Comment by Suzynne Fowler — August 15, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
Its about time - a smoker’s right to smoke should not invade my right to live without breathing in cancer causing smoke. It is not just about rights - its about common courtesy of smokers toward non smokers - which many don’t have. People complaining about people loosing jobs - why do I go to businesses and they are just as busy as before the ban took effect.
Comment by Paul — August 15, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Nevada has finally been transformed into the Peoples Republic of California. This used to be a nice place to live, but it looks as if those days are long gone. It appears it’s time to pack my bags and move away from communist clark county before more of my liberties are stolen from me. Those of you staying here please say “hi” to the nicotine nazis for me!
Comment by Marty — August 15, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
State and Government need to stay out of our personal lives. Its getting so we wont be able to do anything without the “personal police” showing up at our door.
Ban booze, beer etc. Drunk driving is a major problem here and can cause instant death so if state and government want to make a difference then ban everything that puts a smile on our faces.
What a joke this society has become. We are adults and Vegas was always known as the adult playground. Its getting so we have the equivilant to hall monitors chasing us down and “punishing” those they feel are not compling. Good God, if we have lived 50, 60, 70 years, we should be able to enjoy the remaining years of our lives without having the “moral police” barking at our heels.
All these so called laws are putting the small bars out of business and the Corporate bigwigs here love that. I wish the mob still owned this town instead of the Corporates. The Corporations own our Senators, Congressmen and are dictating the way we live. The mob made sure kids didnt get anywhere near the casino area so we didnt have kids running through on the casino floor and yelling. With the Corporates its all about the money and now I would bet they are behind the smoking ban.
If the non-smokers dont like it they dont have to darken the casino/bar doors. If the non-smokers are gambling they have a vice as well as the smokers. Smoking, drinking and gambling are all vices so if you allow 1 or 2 then all should be allowed without penalty of law.
Smoking is not the only contribution to cancers etc. The additives in our food, the meds being pushed like candy at us, industry polluting our air and water ALL have factors in the sicknesses being seen lately. Many old timers smoked and drank and many lived to their 90’s and upward. All the different cancers were non-existent way back when.
I saw one post saying they were thrilled they could eat without smelling like an ashtray. Well I cant stand the ones sitting next to me at the machines or tables and smelling like a brewery. Nothing worse then to smell stale booze or beer and have that person at times be a total a$$.
What happened to rights for all???? Seems a few decided they are the dictators and then rest of us just follow in line like good little sheeple. (sound familiar? Like what we see going on in Washington right now?)
Soon it will be prohibition on cigg. like the speak easy days with booze. Thats how the mob got power….by allowing those with that vice to still enjoy while the Feds tried raiding every nook and granny.
Comment by Misty — August 15, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
The smoking ban is just plain wrong. Bars are for smoking, drinking and having fun. This is sin city after all. I travel around town working in different bars all over the city. Since the ban has gone into effect a lot of bars are being hurt. If the bars are losing business then they lay off employees. So now bars have a choice and what I’m seeing is a lot of good all nite eating joints closing the food section. That is a shame.
Comment by Debra — August 15, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Even the idiot in the white house has nothing to do with this one! The addict blaming Harry Reed seems more of a gasping effort to support his habbit than anything legit! A smoking ban will NOT put us back in the Reagan years!Hell, the savings and loan companies have already gone under!Having to go outside to suck your butts will NOT empty our hotels and close our resorts! There are MORE non-smokers visiting than there are smokers.WE VOTED FOR THIS BAN! YOU ARE OUTNUMBERED!POLITITIONS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Comment by R. Daniels — August 16, 2007 @ 5:17 am
Learn from the California smoking ban. Smoking is DANGEROUS. This ban is long overdue in Nevada.
Comment by Justin — August 16, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
It seems as though many of the smokers are concerned about the financial well-being of the restaurant workers and bar owners, yet they seem to have no real concern for their physical health, or anyone elses. They want non-smokers to get up and leave an establishment if they don’t like
it, they want workers to find a new job if they don’t like it, yet they won’t even get up to go outside to smoke to allow the food workers keep their jobs. Real nice people. It seems as though these people really don’t care at all, and that it’s really just about them getting what THEY want. I’ve been to many non-smoking places and have asked a lot of questions. I’m yet to hear of one employee being let go because of the new law. However, even if so, how does that even come close in comparison to protecting the health of everyone and saving 1000’s of lives.
Smoking kills people, and more (most) importantly, innocent people. Everyone, including smokers, knows it. If you can
find one smoker who disagrees, blow smoke in the face of their baby and see how they react. Or have their child/grandchild ask the smoker if they should start smoking. The same parents/grandparents who will tell these kids over and over not to smoke and will tell them how bad the addiction is, will also be the ones who strap them down in a smoke-filled car. It’s so sad to see how selfish and self-centered a drug addict can be. Much more proof can be found by reading many of these blogs.
Ask a recovered alcoholic, or a recovered drug addict if they were trustworthy when they were using. Ask them to remember back to their state of mind and their thought process. You probably won’t find one who will honestly say they could be trusted. You cannot trust a drug addict. Nicotine addicts are drug addicts too. It’s just the nature of being an addict. The addiction becomes one of the most, if not THE most important part of that persons life. Everything evolves around it. They will say or do many things out of character to preserve the means to continue the addiction.
It’s time for the smokers to abide by the laws of the land. Period. If you don’t like them, move or change them. This law is not about banning smoking. Why are so many smokers reacting like they are smoking their last cigarette with no chance of buying more? Relax. Well, try to relax anyway. It will help if you are not addicted to stimulants such as nicotine.
Love, Dr. Good
Comment by Dr. Good — August 17, 2007 @ 6:13 am
I am amused when I go into bars lately. They are all still smoking places, whatever hoops they jumped thru to do it. Whether they built a wall, or use paper cups for ashtrays or simply just thumb their noses at this stupid law and conduct business as usual. Do you moron who voted for this law really think you won a prize???? LMAO & ROTF!!!!
I am also amused about your stupid comments about being able to eat at a bar without smelling stinky smoke. You a–holes. Why are you just eating???? You should be gambling too, and enough to make up any difference that the smoking gambling would do if they weren’t there.
QUIT CALIFORNICATING NEVADA!!!!!!
Comment by Still Smokin' — August 17, 2007 @ 6:40 am
I am amazed at the number of people who just don’t GET IT! Smoking, drinking, Gambling! LAS VEGAS! Wise up. People come here to unwind and relax. you self righteous individuals who probably don’t even frequent the bars don’t understand that smoking is an Addiction. Studies have show (google it) that tobacco companies have been increasing the level of nicotine in cigarettes. Bars and casinos are places for people to drink, smoke and gamble. you cut off any one of those and watch this town dry up into a deserted wasteland. your choice. where you going to move to?
Comment by Bill — August 17, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
I’m a nonsmoker who feels that the anti smoking crowd is going too far. Take a look at Atlantic City, where they went even further and banned smoking on 75% of the casino floor. The casios revenue has been dropping steadily. I went through the Vegas airport in July and the slot machines in the former smokinmg rooms which used to be packed were completely empty. There has got to be a tremendous amount of revenue being lost. It’s time to get some common sense and work out an equitable solution. One thing I’ve wondered is if the air dams that some stores use as doors would also work to keep out smoke. If they do, that might be an affordable way to separate smoking and non smoking areas.
Comment by Fabian — August 17, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
I think this smoking ban is an infringement of rights to say the least. I don’t understand how if you have to be 21 to be in a bar why they fall into this mess to start with. It’s a persons right to smoke or not. Sure it causes health problems but then what doesn’t? Foods we all eat air we all breath from out side, dust, pollen,etc… lets clean all this up and then worry about children breathing in 2nd hand smoke while eating food in a bar that you have to be 21 to be in , in the 1st place. This isn’t Ca. but you are sure trying to make it that way. I respect the rights of non smokers as well as thoughs who do smoke. We need bans on other things that are more important than this one.
Charlene Roberts
robertslasv4@aol.com
Comment by Charlene Roberts — August 17, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Here we go again with more threats that mean nothing from the health department. Metro does not want anything to do with enforcement and the have already said so. It is still a civil penalty and you do not have to show ID to anyone. Never trust the media. It is always one sided and this again is a poorly written law sponsored by your resort association. It never had anything to do with clean air. If it did, the hotels would be smoke free also. Why does it take so many of you to understand that? I know ,lets vote for a complete indoor smoke free law that includes the casinos and watch your new state tax laws go into place. I laughed when a previous post said that politicians had nothing to do with this law. Lobbyists can do a lot of damage to small business.
Comment by bob — August 24, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
These laws are about protecting everyone from secondhand smoke, not just kids. Smoking laws are going into effect all over the country and all over the world because the devastation and destruction of human lives caused by smoking have been proved beyond any doubt. For those bloggers who think there are more important things to worry about, consider this: of all the deaths caused by alcohol, AIDS, illegal drugs, homicide, accidental deaths by firearms, and all motor vehicle accidents…COMBINED, they are only a fraction (less than 34%) of the deaths caused to smokers each year by their smoking. In addition, the Surgeon General estimates that more than 50,000 non-smokers are killed each year by someone else’s tobacco smoke. When you consider that approx. 83% of smokers want to stop, and all of these deaths are 100% preventable, what could be more important?
I don’t think this is as much of a casino thing as it is a “we the people” thing. It was about deciding which battles are winnable vs. the power and money of Big Tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and the corporate/casino industries. The next fight will be to eradicate smoking in the remaining business establishments. These include the casinos with unrestricted gaming licenses, brothels, strip clubs, and bars that don’t serve food. It appears that lives are less valuable in these places, but it was the trade-off that had to be made in order to reduce the size of the opposing army in a strategic effort to win this battle. It’s asinine to say if you can’t protect everyone from secondhand smoke, you shouldn’t protect anyone. It will be ironic that the groups that tried to deceive the public by creating the “Smoke Free Coalition” and question #4 on the last ballot, might now actually be fighting to help ban smoking in the remainder of these unhealthy public venues.
I agree with the bar owners who say the ban should have been across the board to all businesses. However, sometimes life doesn’t seem fair and sometimes it actually isn’t. The good news is that their day is coming, and “doing the right thing” and abiding by the law has much greater long-term benefits. Marketing strategies and business plans may have to be altered to accommodate these new laws. Some businesses will adapt well and some will even thrive, some will not. Nothing is forever.
I visit smoking establishments with little or no customers in them all the time and I also see non-smoking places that are packed. There are also many non-smoking places with little or no customers and they say it’s the smoking ban that drove everyone away. As a 30-year Las Vegas resident (not from California), I KNOW many of these places were “dead” prior to the smoking ban. Many bars/casinos have gone out of business/bankrupt over the years and none of them were caused by a smoking ban. From now on, every bar that doesn’t make it will blame it on the smoking ban.
It’s important to remember also that many bar owners are also smokers. I’ll repeat some things I’ve said before in this blog, but if you don’t believe that statement, ask a recovered drug addict or a recovered alcoholic if they were trustworthy when they were “using”. You cannot trust a drug addict. I believe many of these bar owners who smoke, would rather smoke in their bars and make less money, than to abide by the law and make more money. It’s just the nature of an addict. The addiction becomes the focal point of the addicts’ life and everything evolves around it. Protecting the addiction and the means to feed the addiction is everything. Read the posts on here from some of the smokers and get educated.
Smoking will never be eliminated and I will always fight for a persons right to smoke or any other stupid thing they want to do. However, nothing that a person does, can be at the expense of another, AND they must pay for the damage they knowingly do to themselves. So please don’t tell your (our) insurance company you didn’t know smoking would hurt or kill you when you get the bill. More bad news, if you’re smoking with the hopes of leaving your family with a chance to sue the tobacco companies for millions due to your early death and years of suffering, not gonna work. Those days are over. There are other reasons you will be able to sue these ruthless bastards for, but you can’t say you didn’t know the repercussions of burning rolled up weeds, laced with cancer-causing chemicals, and inhaling the smoke deep into your lungs.
As a matter of fact, I think we should lobby the tobacco companies to increase the number of chemicals in cigarettes from 4000 to 8000 and to increase the number of cancer-causing carcinogens from 50 to 100. If you don’t like that idea, how about if we lobby to eliminate all the cancer-causing carcinogens in cigarettes and you can smoke them wherever you want? Don’t tell me you don’t like that idea either because it’s taking away your rights to let Big Tobacco slowly kill you. Get it together man! Please don’t let Big Tobacco determine your fate. Take control of your life and what goes in your body. Don’t hate non-smokers because they do. Feeling animosity towards non-smokers will only prevent many smokers from becoming one. This is part of the ingenious tactics of the tobacco industry by funding organizations that empower smokers to fight for what they believe are their “rights” and fuel the fire of pitting smokers against non-smokers. This is what keeps many smokers a loyal customer for life. The only difference between a smoker and a non-smoker is that one is addicted to nicotine. The only thing that smoking laws prevent is the ability for some smokers to hurt innocent people.
Smoking bans have a tremendous impact on reducing the percentage of smokers because it isn’t long before many smokers start to see the whole illusion of smoking from a very different perspective. Standing in the back alley and smoking is not much different than what most all other drug addicts have to do. Do you really think you’d be so proud of being a nicotine addict if it wasn’t for the billions of dollars spent by the industry trying to glamorize it? It actually went from being perceived as glamorous to the reality of being pathetic in about 25 to 30 years.
Feel free to visit my web site drgood.com. I will give $500 to anyone who can convince me smoking isn’t stupid. Please take a few minutes if you would to do a survey on smoking at surveysue.com.
Love, Dr. Good
Comment by Dr. Good — August 29, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
I have read some of these posts. Dr. Good says it like it is… and even has real statistics to back himself/herself up with.
I am a smoker, but am not proud of it any longer.
I started smoking when I was 16 because my friends made it look cool. And I thought it made me look cool, too.
When I smoke, I go outside so that my kids don’t inhale the smoke. I haven’t smoked in my car since my kids were born. (Also, because we bought a new car around the same time my first son was born and I wanted to keep it smoke-free… but the main reason was my kids’ health.)
Let’s face it: It is just not socially acceptable to smoke anymore. Not to mention what it is really doing to our health.
The majority of people are up on the fact that it can kill and are sick of us pushing our “rights” to smoke onto them and their right to breath.
I have to agree with the non-smoking population and just smoked my last cigarette about 1/2 hour ago.
I’m sick of what cigarettes have done to me and the control they have over me.
Not anymore! It’s mind over matter now.
Comment by Laurie — August 31, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Dr Good would have a much different opinion if he invested his own money into bars and restaurants. Furthermore, political policy from the resort lobby never has had the publics best interest in mind when it affects gaming revenue. Whether you choose to believe the real figures in a business Dr Good knows nothing about,taverns are down 40 percent in gaming and hotels are on the increase. The tavern group was offered a buyout of this bill 4 years ago for half a million dollars to “make this issue go away”. They refused,put up question 4 which was horrible and lost the vote to non smokers who dont gamble. All this for a poorly written question 5 with no criminal liability. It has always been an economic issue, not a clean air issue. We all can agree that smoking is stupid ,as you say, but it should then be stupid for everyone? Your resort association says no and they have all the clout to clobber anyone in their path. The gaming taverns were first in line.
Comment by bob — September 6, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
what kind of retard would invest his or her own money into bars and resturants when you have a local casino around every corner. way too much competition in this town for that. dr good says it all, period!
Comment by don wikinson — October 5, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
I am curious if any tavern owners who would like to have smoking in the places have ever looked into actually registering as a private bar, I dont know if legally this would make an establishment exempt from the current law but I have seen bars in dry towns ie Richardson, TX use this avenue to allow patrons to drink. They simply have a little membership (free) form buiit into there POS system. My understanding the law applies to public buildings serving food. This would give smokers a chance to have places to go, and for nonsmokers just continue to go to the public non-smoking establishments. It should all be about a choice of where you want to go. Not forced. There should be freedoms on both side of the fences. -Thanks, Ken Lanier
Comment by Ken Lanier — December 3, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
I am a smoker. I have attempted to quit on several occasions without much luck. I believe, as I think most intelligent individuals, smokers or not, that smoking is a disgusting, unhealthy, and stinky habit. The costs involved with health care related issues caused by smoking are monumental. We all share in these costs whether we smoke or not. The answer to the smoking problem is not to pass a law which isolates the small Bar or tavern owner, protecting the large deep pocketed Mega Casinos. The answer is as clear as the nose on Jimmy Durante’s face: Outlaw cigarettes ! I am completely opposed to Government infringing on an individuals rights, but what purpose do cigarette’s serve, other than to cause mass health problems ? However, the Government, local, state, and/or federal only have the spine to take on these smaller business owners. The politicians that would need to take any type of action to outlaw cigarettes are put in office, and kept there, with the help of large campaign contributions from the tobacco industry. If anyone, non-smoker, or smoker, can tell me what positive contribution cigarettes make to society, I will apologize and retract my opinion. The only way we as every day citizens can really do something to make a positive difference is to write, or call our representatives, and tell them to do away with the cigarette industry completely. I smoke because so far, I have been to weak to quit. If cigarettes were not available, maybe I’d stand a better chance, and maybe, just maybe, everyone that is a smoker would live a longer, healthier life.
Comment by Rick H — December 3, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
I think it’s a conspiracy between the gaming commission, the big casino’s and the health district. Where else can you drink, smoke, AND eat? THE BIG CASINO’S…that’s where. Pretty clear to me. Forces the little guy to have to gamble if they want to drink, or pay 11.00 for a two dollar drink. This is a gambling, smoking, partying town…keep the little kids out of the casino’s and let business continue. I am a native Las Vegan, AND a smoker, and this smoking ban is nothing more than a way to put small business out of business and residents into the casino’s with all those people who are gonna go back home and talk shit about our town anyways. Another bit of proof is all the “free standing” night clubs that are not in casino’s are being bought up by the big hotels…so again, the locals have to go into the casino’s to drink and dance a little. Out of towners save all year to come here once or twice a year…we live here and pay the taxes and can’t enjoy our city for less than a weeks wages for a night out…don’t get me started…
Comment by Melanie — December 4, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
I have smoked for 30 yrs.. I have always been curtious to others that dont smoke.. I cant beleive some of the comments about what it does to the air… get out on the freeway and drive into las vegas sometime.. the only thing that you can visually see is the needle at the top of the stratosphere…this smoking thing is a joke as is the rest of the bans going on.. I will continue to say one nation UNDER GOD while saluting the flag, I will continue to say MERRY CHRISTMAS not seasons greetings..I will paddle my childrens behind only hard enough they get the message..
and I will continue to smoke regardless of these morons who think they all have to have it all changed to make them feel importnant..
Go into a casino in vegas sometime .. the nonsmoking area is dead.. but you have all the non smokers playing the machines where everyone is smoking!!! and they still complain!!
Comment by Terri — January 10, 2008 @ 9:59 am
All I know is that my daddy would still be alive today if he had never started smoking or had been able to quit. My sons no longer have a grandpa. I feel that if there were fewer places where people could smoke publicly that there perhaps would be less smokers or at least people smoking less. I know that since high school students are no longer allowed to smoke at school that the # of teen aged smokers has dropped dramatically. I begged my daddy to quit smoking in 1990. He did not. He’s been dead for two years now and my heart has a big hole in it. I miss my daddy so much.
Comment by Gina — May 16, 2008 @ 5:24 am
My wife and I visited Smoke Free Nevada last summer and loved it! We spent more money at restaurants and several bars than we normally would and we now plan to return to Smoke Free Nevada soon! Also, since then, my State of Illinois went Smoke Free including Gambling River Boats and it is great!! The retsaurants, bars, worker’s offices, factories and even the Gambling Boats are doing wonderfully. They are all finally smoke free. The Smoke Free Law is the best thing that ever happened to Illinois and also for Nevada!
Comment by Bill — July 28, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
I am a native of Las Vegas and have lived my 30+ years of life being forced to injest other peoples’ deadly habits. It is about time the public are protected from second-hand smoke. It is a public health issue and the Health District should be commended for their efforts in trying to inforce the non-smoking ban in restaurants/bars which WE the people voted for. Restaruant/bars such as Timbers get around the ban by having seperate food areas and if other establishments have an issue with the ban they should comply like Timbers has.
Go smoke your inconsiderate brains out, if you should choose. But keep it to yourselves!
Comment by Smoke Hater — March 22, 2009 @ 8:11 pm