Fair and Balanced Fred wrote on April 21, 2009 10:48 PM: Fair and Balanced "dirkdanger" warns us about "junk science".

junk science (noun) Any science a Fair and Balanced Republicon disagrees with; see global warming.

Vegas Vic wrote on April 21, 2009 07:51 PM: To me, it sounds like this "report" took in economic factors from all over the valley. What it DIDN'T say is what happened to INDIVIDUAL businesses. That's where the economic hits happened. The casinos didn't suffer because they were exempt, having unrestricted gaming licenses. Bars that also had unrestricted gaming licenses also got a pass on needing to follow this ban. The smaller, mom & pop bars with restricted licenses are the ones who took it on the chin. So the study was an exercise in futility because it did not concentrate on the small, local bars but the entire economic infrastructure of the valley.

Patrick wrote on April 21, 2009 04:44 PM: You don't look at employment numbers at IBM to determine if a smoking ban hurt bars...

dirkdanger wrote on April 21, 2009 03:12 PM: Hopefully the UNLV budget cuts will end these partisan, you already know the study results before they started, lying liberal garbage we want to justify our position fake science studies.

The same people would argue that outlawing alcohol sales would increase Nevada tourism.

LIBERALS gullible, dumb and dishonest

dob wrote on April 21, 2009 03:02 PM: . I am of the opinion that if a tax is good for one group, race, religion it is good for everyone. Tax an item at a reasonable rate or just ban it. Democrats want to play both sides, they talk about health but they are the single largest profiteer on tobacco in the world currently or any time in history

dob wrote on April 21, 2009 03:01 PM: Eric

Not sure if you care for the truth or you just want to pick a side and argue the point and ignore the facts.

My statement before, that their was an effect is true, every single slot route operator had a decline in revenue the moment the smoking ban took effect, then the economy started going down shortly after and that also had an effect, neither one caused 100% of the decline but each had it’s part of the decline, saying otherwise is false. As for the enforcement issue, there are several businesses that allow patrons to smoke, they do not enforce the law, for that matter know one is currently enforcing the law and putting the burden on the health department is a joke (if I voted for the law I would be angry about that).

Even if a business owner does not enforce the law it does not mean everyone will start coming back, many smokers are following the law and have changed their behavior and/or go somewhere else. If we create exceptions to the law it will help some businesses but create more enforcement issues, smokers will have enough trouble remembering the rules and non smokers won’t remember.

As voters we have voted for government to take care of us from cradle to grave, we want someone else to pay for it or take care of it. That won’t change and smoking laws are here to stay expect more not less and expect them to expand to other items like fast food.

I expect a decline in legal cigarette sales with the new federal tax, it is to soon to tell. Our state also wants to single out a legal product and over tax it to balance the budget.

K G B wrote on April 21, 2009 12:57 PM: Eric, your post is a complete fabrication.

I stopped going to two bars because they enforced, and are still enforcing the ban. I simply took by business elsewhere.

The bars I go to followed the law and enclosed their dining area. At a huge cost to them.

My favorite bar enclosed the dining area and the bathrooms but not the area in between. They installed an outside door to the bathrooms and now those patrons who are scared to death to breath second hand smoke have the opportunity to avoid it by walking around the building, even in 115 degree temps.

Would you believe that not one person has done that. They have opted to take their lives in their own hands and walk through the smoke in order to avoid the walk around in the fresh air.

Sure was nice when they could just tell those smokers to stand outside and do it. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot.

Eric wrote on April 21, 2009 12:18 PM: If there was no enforcement, which seems to be the case, then how could the ban itself impact sales? This whole issue has started to confuse me. - which I am guessing is the goal of those looking to weaken the law. No one is talking about the employees and the environment they are forced to work in. I think a number of voters took a healthy worksite into consideration when voting to pass the clean indoor air law...pretty simple to me...

dob wrote on April 21, 2009 12:05 PM: Look if we the people ban a practice that’s fine, but to say it had no effect is absolutely bogus. At best it shifted business from small business to the casinos, which is why they supported it. At worst is decreased revenue to the affected businesses.

To say otherwise is an absolute lie.

Brendan Perez wrote on April 21, 2009 09:31 AM: Even if it's true, all this proves is that non-smokers could have opened their own non-smoking bars and made money.

Read All Comments