Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
News
Jan. 10, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Study finds unsafe secondhand smoke levels

Eateries in casinos still over limit

By ANNETTE WELLS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
AT A GLANCE

• The Southern Nevada Health District has received more than 4,200 complaints from the public in the past 18 months about potential violations of the smoking ban.

• No citations have been issued recently.

• Twelve out of 16 restaurants surveyed inside Las Vegas casinos had air pollution levels above those recommended by the EPA.

• An appeal of a district judge’s decision regarding civil penalties that can be assessed for smoking violations is still pending in the Nevada Supreme Court.

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL


Nancy York, a nursing professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, shows an air quality monitoring device she and others used to measure secondhand smoke inside restaurants located in casinos.
Photo by K.M. Cannon.

Restaurants located within casinos still contain unsafe levels of secondhand smoke when compared to EPA guidelines post the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, a new study shows.

"It doesn't just stay on the casino floors,'' said Nancy York, a nursing professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who conducted the study between November 2007 and March 2008.


Most Popular Stories
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade
  • NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges
  • Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty
  • NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch
  • DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family
  • Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss
  • Two suspects in officer's slaying could face death penalty
  • Corrections officer dies in collision on U.S. 95
  • NORM: 'Girls Gone Wild' creator feels heat




    • "The smoke is drifting, which is a normal phenomenon, into areas that are supposed to be nonsmoking. The only way to have a nonsmoking area is to be a nonsmoking building.''

    The findings were released this week.

    The Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, which prohibits smoking in restaurants as well as bars that serve food, was enacted in December 2006.

    The study's goal was to determine the general relationship between air quality in nonsmoking restaurants that are within smoke-permitting casinos. York and other researchers randomly selected 16 restaurants -- eight on the Strip and eight throughout the Las Vegas Valley -- located in casinos.

    Researchers from the University of Kentucky's public health department also helped gather data for the study.

    Using small air quality monitors, researchers measured the air inside the casino first, then within a restaurant inside that casino. York said "measurements were taken as if we were inhaling smoke like regular patrons.''

    The monitors were worn under the clothing of York and other researchers doing the study and the restaurants were not aware their air quality was being measured.

    The study did not name the restaurants monitored nor the casinos in which they were located.

    Though secondhand smoke pollution in the restaurants was lower than in the overall casinos, 12 of the restaurants still had air pollution levels that exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommendations for indoor air quality.

    "It's just really hard to determine what impact smoke bans have on nonsmoking restaurants inside smoke-permitting casinos,'' York said.

    Nevada's controversial ban, passed in November 2006, prohibits smoking in nearly all buildings in the state where the public might visit. Casino floors, brothels and smoke parlors where tobacco products are sold are exempt. So are certain businesses with unrestricted gaming licenses.

    Smokers who violate the act are subject to a $100 fine for each infraction. Businesses can be fined if they do not post "No Smoking" signs and fail to remove ashtrays and smoking paraphernalia.

    A challenge to the law is on appeal with the state Supreme Court. Businesses are challenging a decision by District Judge Douglas Herndon to uphold civil penalties for violators.

    That appeal is awaiting a hearing, said Michael Hackett, who campaigned for the smoke ban.

    Hackett said he had not seen UNLV's study. However, he expected there would be a difference in the air quality of restaurants that are inside the newer casinos versus the older ones.

    The health district was left with the sole enforcement responsibility in Southern Nevada after a judge in December 2006 removed criminal penalties from the law, taking away any law enforcement role in ensuring compliance.

    In October 2007 the Southern Nevada Health District's health board directed the agency's staff to develop regulations that could clear up any problems and challenges in enforcing the law. Staff also was directed to work closely with local taverns on those regulations and to gather public feedback through future workshops.

    A public workshop was held last year.

    The decision to develop regulations was the result of the health district's staff having concerns about approaching patrons of restaurants who were violating the law and citing them.

    Stephanie Bethel, a spokeswoman for the Southern Nevada Health District, said the state is reviewing the proposed regulations. Meanwhile, the health district is continuing to field complaints from the public regarding violations.

    Even if health district staff were to issue citations, there is no clear method yet for handling those citations in court.

    Of the study, York said, "Certainly for people with existing heart and lung disease it probably isn't a good idea to be within casinos for an extended period of time. But we're not advocating for anything. We're just presenting the information to the public.''

    UNLV also is conducting a study on the economic impact of the law on businesses. Results of that study should be available by spring, York said.

    Contact reporter Annette Wells at awells@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0283.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 18 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Obummer wrote on March 15, 2009 06:00 AM: I think they should force the casinos to ban smoking inside their buildings and out on the property as well.

    Think of the children


    Nurse Nancy wrote on January 13, 2009 04:05 PM: The issue is proper warning. Casinos are trying to have it both ways: attracting smokers but also nonsmokers by advertising "smoke free" areas. If I wish to avoid second-hand smoke (which has been shown to contain many substances harmful to health), I'd like to be able to make decisions about where to frequent based on adequate knowledge. Now I know to avoid casinos altogether, as there are no truly smoke free areas. I guess the casinos aren't interested in my business.


    Vegas CPA wrote on January 11, 2009 01:25 AM: And after the non-smoking gestapo ultimately get their way...........like Atlantic City........they will all lease our fair valley because the loss of business will not allow them to have decent jobs...........and they they can go to the next city and bankrupt that one.
    If you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke........there are plenty of establishments that have no smoking. If you want to gamble.....play in the gas station or supermarket............ya'll would rather ruin the largest job creators in the state under the guise of protecting employees. Just ask the non-smoking employees that work in casinos why they don't quit. Answer....no other good jobs......and these are not as good as a year ago.


    Pete wrote on January 10, 2009 09:00 PM: My oh my, I'm really surprised at how many smokers in denial who we have posting here. Apparently we're supposed to believe tobacco companies and smokers over doctors and science. There have been dozens of studies done around the US and around the world that have all shown that secondhand smoke is dangerous to health. Ask your own family doctor if you don't believe every public health agency in the land.


    tony wrote on January 10, 2009 08:40 PM: Who was paying Nancy York and companey. Could it be the Non-Smoking liberal ???. You Bet it was.


    Steve wrote on January 10, 2009 06:23 PM: Wouldn't it be great if all of the whiners about smoking in casinos, etc were to drop dead at the same time? Wouldn't the world be such a great place without all of these crybaby liberal California transplanted morons?


    Hoku wrote on January 10, 2009 06:08 PM: I am a frequent visitor to Vegas and spend a LOT of money, not just in the casinos, but shopping and restaurants also. One of the reasons I spend my time and money here versus elsewhere is because I can smoke. It was bad enough the airport became totally non-smoking, but if the casinos are forced to go non-smoking I WILL spend my time and money elsewhere. Vegas is called sin city for a reason. And I will not sit for hours gambling if I can't smoke.

    I once gambled in Australia where the casino was non-smoking by law. I did not spend much money there as I and about half the patrons were all standing outside casino in the freezing cold, smoking and talking. Time outside is time not spending money. I left 2 days early, and will never go back there to gamble.


    0u812 wrote on January 10, 2009 05:25 PM: Pete & Health care, how do you know she/he is a reputable scientist what other scientific data has he/she written as factual. Pete please show me one evidence that second hand smoke has damaged life just one proof, not some yak saying so. Smoking has been around along with second hand smoke for along time until someone needed money to get a gov.grant to pad their pocket. WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY SENIOR CITIZENS ALIVE TODAY WITH SECOND HAND SMOKE SO DANGEROUS, THEY SMOKED EVERYWHERE. Ask your reputable scientist to answer this? They can not, not even one doctor. Your second hand smoke belongs in the trash. The smoker will have problems as he inhales 1st & 2nd hand smoke. By the way the sky is falling this is from a reputable chicken little.


    Don't kill the Messenger: wrote on January 10, 2009 01:58 PM: Memo to Herb: Please wake up, I believe frakey is being sarcastic to the mental capacity of the avg. moronic smoker.


    Pete wrote on January 10, 2009 01:15 PM: I agree with Health Care Practitioner. With all of the evidence of the harm done by exposure to secondhand smoke, there certainly will be some massive lawsuits launched by some of the staff. I'm sure that I read that a worker at an Atlantic City casino is already getting compensation for lung cancer that was ruled to be caused by secondhand smoke over the years. Judges believe doctors and scientists, not tobacco companies when it comes to people's health.


    Read All Comments