Comments (62) | Add a comment
Tavern owners urge lawmakers to clear air on smoking ban
-
Cathleen Allison/Associated Press
Democrat Marcus Conklin of Las Vegas, vice chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, and Chandra Mayer, a Reno mother, talk in a hallway of the Legislative Building in Carson City after a hearing on a bill that would allow smoking in taverns that serve food. The practice was outlawed by the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act of 2006. The panel took no action on the bill.
Tools
-
Roger Sachs, behind the bar, talks with Stephenie and Dennis Miller at Steiner's on Monday. Sachs is director of operations at the pub and president and chairman of the Nevada Tavern Owners Association, which supports a bill that would allow smoking in taverns that serve food. Duane Prokop/Las Vegas Review-Journal » Buy this photo
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
Updated: May 24, 2011 | 6:52 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- Tavern owners told state legislators Monday that smokers should no longer be forced to choose between chicken fingers and cigarettes.
They said Assembly Bill 571 is the cure to what ails them -- jobs and revenue lost because of the voter-approved Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act of 2006, which forced them to remodel bars to separate smoking from food service or close kitchens altogether.
The measure, which has newfound support from the Nevada Resort Association, has two weeks to clear the Democrat-controlled Legislature and reach Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, who hasn't yet said whether he would sign it. The Legislature must adjourn by June 6.
AB571 was introduced late Friday by the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and pitched by tavern owners as a way to clarify the original intent of the 2006 smoking measure by clearly exempting "stand-alone" bars, taverns and saloons from the ban if they serve food.
It also would ensure that smoking isn't banned from places such as the Las Vegas Convention Center when smoking-related trade shows are under way, another source of frustration with the original act.
An exemption for tobacco-related conventions was added in 2009 but the American Cancer Society sued, sending the matter to court. That prompted show sponsors to select other locations.
Clarifying the law as it relates to conventions would help bring tobacco shows back to Las Vegas, said authority spokesman Vince Alberta.
"If this law gets passed, it would further clarify the law and make the lawsuit moot," Alberta said.
Ways and Means Committee members expressed mixed feelings about the bill during a two-hour hearing that didn't include an up or down vote.
Roger Sachs, president and chairman of the Nevada Tavern Owners Association, said the 2006 law was meant to protect children and families from unwanted smoke, "not to keep adults from having some chicken fingers while smoking a cigarette."
The voter-approved act banned smoking in restaurants, grocery stores, bars that serve food and places where children are present.
It exempted casino floors, strip clubs and "stand-alone bars, taverns and saloons" in which food service is "incidental to its operation." Another provision said "incidental" food service is limited to pre-packaged food such as chips or pretzels.
During testimony Monday, tavern owners complained that while the act defines "stand-alone" taverns and "incidental" food service, the way the terms are linked in its provisions is confusing.
Blake Sartini, founder and CEO of Golden Gaming Inc., a tavern, casino and slot route company, said the proliferation of bars that serve food and offer gambling is unique to Nevada and depends in large part on allowing adult customers the choice to smoke.
"We are a unique business that exists only in Nevada, and smoking customers are essential to a healthy tavern business," Sartini said.
In addition to the tavern owners, representatives of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and R&R Partners, which represents the Nevada Resort Association, testified in support of the bill.
Michael Alonso, a lobbyist for the authority, said Las Vegas lost tobacco-related trade shows to Orlando, Fla., and New Orleans as a result of the act.
"The (authority) believes they can get some of those shows to come back," Alonso said.
Also testifying was Jeremy Aguero, a principal analyst at the Las Vegas economics research firm Applied Analysis.
Aguero said the law has cost taverns about $114 million in lost revenue and nearly 360 jobs.
Opponents from the American Lung Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society testified against the bill.
"It is against the biology of our bodies to breathe in secondhand smoke," said Chris Roller of the Lung Association, who added that many food-serving bars in Las Vegas ignore the 2006 law. "I am one of dozens of people I know that will not go to these establishments in Las Vegas because they are ignoring the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act."
Chandra Mayer, a Reno mother, also testified against the bill.
She said approving AB571 would undermine the intention of voters who approved the ban.
"We voted on this. We are not sure why it is back," Mayer said. "For us moms, it seems a little underhanded."
Some lawmakers expressed skepticism toward the tavern operators' testimony, and others seemed inclined to favor changing the law.
Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas, questioned whether the smoking ban had anything to do with taverns' lost revenue.
"Most folks over the last few years have tied that to a bad economy," Atkinson said. "This has been tied to an inability to smoke in these facilities. I'm having a hard time with that."
Assemblywoman Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas, suggested that if the intention of the 2006 law was to ban smoking, it didn't work and in reality seemed to have done more to make it difficult for taverns to serve food.
"They just got rid of the kitchens, and people are still smoking," Carlton said. "It was not a success in Southern Nevada."
She said tavern customers "are all adults and can make their own choices."
Contact reporter Benjamin Spillman at bspillman@ reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3861.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal 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 use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
On May 25, 2011 07:53 AM Jack.Webb wrote:
"Data Please" Jack does not believe there is any credibly data showing that Secondhand smoke is harmful.
Here you go Jacky. Start your illogical denial
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=18
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Institue of Medicine - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM) - National Cancer Institute (NCI) - World Health Organization (WHO)
Hey Jack - why don't you show me your data that proves secondhand smoke is safe. Oh and by the way. Last year my Mother buried her husband who died of Lung Cancer. How about you leave her out of it and remain civil. I noticed you didn't respond to my assertion that the comprehensive indoor smoking ban will occur. Even Jack.Webb knows that is the future.
Is this a democratic state? This law went through all the legal procedures to become what it is today "LAW". We voted on it, it passed, its a law now. How can it just be changed because, the NRA supports it now. Sounds like someone is getting money in their pocket for this one. But then again, this is the most corrupt legal system I have seen in our country.
Iowa. Save the drama fo' yo' mama.
"IowaVegas wrote on May 25, 2011 12:58 AM: Hey Jack.Webb: You Really believe that second hand smoke does no harm??? So all the medical studies, the doctors and researches are wrong?"
Data, please.
Hey Jack.Webb: You Really believe that second hand smoke does no harm??? So all the medical studies, the doctors and researches are wrong? The fact that I cough and wheeze after being subjected to secondhand smoke is simply in my head?
This is why your addict attitude will fail. You don't think rationally. Secondhand smoke is harmful. Just because you ignore all the common sense and medical evidence for whatever fantasy, conspiracy theory you foolishly "believe" doesn't make it any less harmful.
ACCEPT IT. You are going to take your addiction outside. You know I'm right. I'm sure you are old enough to see how far things have changed. I remember when planes had smoking sections. Rediculous. I remember when every restaurant had smoking sections. Insane. (by the way somehow the airline industry and restaurant businesses have prospered- SHOCKING). The question is not "IF" it will happen The question is "WHEN" Believe it or not Jacky I really hope you live long enough to see it. Superb debating skills there Jacky. Did you look up any other big words other than "epidemiological data" If you have the research that everyone else does not have why don't you present it. Please offer me your proof that secondhand smoke is harmeless. Please, I would love to see that. You can't. You live in a dream world and are about to wake up. Deal with reality Jacky. Sooner than later you WILL take your POISON outside. You know it. People with your attitude are dwindling. Calling me a drama queen and using big words and fantasy research won't change the facts and rational thinking. Good Luck Jacky
So a hungry unemployed transgender smoker walks into a tavern and wants to apply for a job, get a cup of coffee, have a smoke and a burger. Is that discrimination?
This is not a customer issue, this is an employee issue. As soon as second hand smoke was declared a public health hazard, employees had immediate recourse to file for protection against health hazards in the workplace. Lawsuits like this have been won several times in other states already. The only entities that seem to be immune from this employee protection are the large casinos. It's coming though. Large casinos won't be able to hold this back forever. In the meantime, bars should be treated equally. And to IowaVegas: You know where you're going. It ain't Bible study and they don't serve protein shakes. Find another den of iniquity to amuse yourself if you can't handle the smoke. Freakin' hypocrite!
"IowaVegas wrote on May 24, 2011 09:41 PM: I have just as much legal right to enter a bar as the next person. I do not have a legal right to harm you while you are in the bar. You have no legal right to harm me."
Including as much epidemiological data as possible, please demonstrate exactly how your were "harmed" by tobacco smoke in a bar.
Or are you just another drama queen looking for any pretext to act victimized so that you may whine and get attention? Grow up. You aren't 11 years-old any longer.
I have just as much legal right to enter a bar as the next person. I do not have a legal right to harm you while you are in the bar. You have no legal right to harm me. Smoking is poison. Would you like it if I put rat poison into your soup?
I'm tired of trying to talk logic with irrational addicts. I am also tired of being assalted by their poison. We need to stand up to their abuse. We need to stand up for our right to breathe. We need to continue to push these ignorant poisoners outside. Feel free to take in as much poison as you like. But I will NOT tolerate you poisoning me anymore.
YOU WILL TAKE YOUR POISON OUTSIDE WHETHER YOU WHINE ABOUT IT OR NOT!
THERE IS NO HOPE FOR YOUR ATTITUDE. SMOKER'S ATTITUDES ARE DWINDLING. PEOPLE STANDING UP FOR THEIR RIGHT NOT TO BE POISONED IS GROWING.
YOU WILL TAKE YOUR POISON OUTSIDE!
ACCEPT IT! THAT IS THE FUTURE!