Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu

Opinion
Apr. 16, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

LETTERS: To boost revenue, repeal smoking law

To the editor:

Despite what the vocal minority claims, an easy way to immediately start adding tax dollars to state coffers would be to rescind the archaic, unconstitutional, anti-business smoking law deceitfully presented to the electorate.

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

Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Public employee pay
  • FROM OUR READERS: Do those who voted for Halverson have a clue?
  • LETTERS: No more cuts to public schools
  • EDITORIAL: Another drug raid gone bad
  • LETTERS: Classic case of burying the news
  • LETTERS: Public school cuts political, impractical
  • EDITORIAL: 'Buyers in these areas are responding ... '
  • EDITORIAL: Rich man, poor man
  • FROM OUR READERS: No tax hikes? It might be time to sue
  • EDITORIAL: School choice



    • When people were arguing "Yes on 4," "No on 5" and vice versa in 2006, I was calling for a no vote on both. That thousands of children were dying in our streets from secondhand smoke after hanging out in taverns was the most laughable excuse for this law ever conceived. Even the most deranged liberal can hardly make that connection.

    After almost a year and a half into this folly, let's list the accomplishments. Bar owners were told they could serve food or allow smoking, but not both. An untold number of short-order cooks and waitresses in Nevada lost their jobs when taverns closed their kitchens to try to retain smoking customers and keep their gambling revenues up. Taxes lost. Bartending and waitress shifts were cut back due to the loss of business. Taxes lost. Hungry customers are now forced to leave taverns to get food because delivery was also banned. Taxes lost. Gamers that once frequented taverns now go to larger casinos, where the gaming tax is a lot less than what smaller taverns pay. Taxes lost.

    When the voters enact laws that affect millions of dollars in taxes and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people, do they ever consider any future ramifications?

    In the little tavern I frequent, four cooks and three waitresses, two of whom were teachers working part-time to supplement their income, lost their jobs. No longer are they employed as such.

    A simple and much easier standard that should have been established was a simple sign that read "No person under the age of 21 allowed on premises." Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    Robert Opp

    LAS VEGAS

    Economics lesson

    To the editor:

    Sen. John McCain made one of the wiser remarks in this presidential campaign when he admitted he was not well-versed in economics. Both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton have demonstrated their own ignorance with their promises of economic change. Why do they think President Lyndon B. Johnson's war against poverty failed? And why do they think the efforts of other Democratic administrations since FDR have all failed to achieve exactly what the current Democrats are promising?

    The answer is that this country's Constitution did not place the government in charge of the economy. The millions of business owners and managers have that job. Without our capitalist economy, this nation would not be the wealthiest in the world. Our government's only power is to interfere with the economy.

    The best way government can help is to reduce its interference, i.e., by lowering taxes, or hinder by raising them. And Democrats usually raise them, thereby hindering business. Government can also try to control business activity, which again is a hindrance.

    I doubt that any Democratic candidate ever studied Milton Friedman's books on economics. In fact, it is obvious from their letters and voting that relatively few people in this country, including Republicans, understand economics or the capitalist system upon which we all depend. Too bad our schools don't require such study early in children's lives.

    P.W. Allen

    LAS VEGAS

    Food for thought

    To the editor:

    The International Monetary Fund chairman stated that a food shortage and high food prices are significantly caused by switching crops from food production to agrofuel production (Sunday Review-Journal). According to The History Channel, the direct cost for this fuel is 29 percent higher than for straight fossil fuels.

    This is what happens when politics supersedes economics. It has been proved time and again, whether it's called socialism (which has never worked) or global warming (which seems to be coming apart), should the news media really do its job.

    Harvey Goldstein

    LAS VEGAS

    Government 'fixes'

    To the editor:

    I read the Review-Journal online every day and letters to the editor most of the time. The most troubling trend I see is how people are so willing and ready to allow the government to "fix" any problem they encounter in their lives, from home foreclosure to sore feet.

    What most people would realize, if they actually sat down and thought about it, is that most of the problems they have now are the result of government intervention.

    The problem we as citizens have is that we are no longer represented in Washington. The people we elect represent Washington to us. In addition, when we ask our politicians to "fix" something for us, we have to be ready to accept all that comes with that request: the corruption, the self-interest and all of the special interest influence against which we have no chance.

    Therefore, the next time you ask for the government to "fix" something, ask yourself, "Do I really want all that goes with it?"

    STEVE WAUGH

    LAS VEGAS



    Leave Your Comment 55 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:

    David Johann wrote on April 17, 2008 08:15 PM: How much air time do

    Al Franken
    Stewart Smalley
    Chris Matthews
    Ted Turner

    Get. Ted Turner? Is he still alive? Chris Mathews? What exactly is his ideology? Stewart Smalley. Who?

    Yes, there are SO many caustic progressives out there, compared to the FOX "News" lineup. Rational, progressive arguments are boring.

    Al Franken? The biggest name of the bunch. How much air time does he get?

    Those guys are boring. They expect us to think.

    None were bankrolled by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife.

    BTW, the references I always cite are very brief. They are not peer-reviewed journal articles (who would read those?).


    Sad Summerlin wrote on April 17, 2008 12:38 AM: David, I really appreciate how much you research your arguments. It does show that you put a lot of thought into your process.

    I will at this time take a pass to do the detailed research as it is late, but I have to give a few names:

    Al Franken
    Stewart Smalley
    Chris Matthews
    Ted Turner

    The above have used similar rhetoric as Savage, Michael Reagan, Ann Coulter etc. It happens on both sides of the fence and is not limited to just the Limbaugh's and O'Reillys of the world. Remember this as well, if you think pundits report news, you are sorely mistaken and from your posts I cannot believe you to be that naive (no double meaning here, it is respectful). The problem is people DO believe these are news makers and reporters. Most are entertainers that put a news or political spin on the arguments. Their shows are about entertainment. Using hyperbole is their weapon of choice and they do it effectively to draw more viewers and listeners.

    While I can correlate Rush's rise to the 1994 congress, I was listening to Rush in the Bay Area back in 1990 and 1991 and enjoying his refreshing take on the Bush presidency. The election of Clinton and the ushering in of the Republican "revolution" of 1994 just gave him even more artillery --- and Bill's escapades made for great entertainment as well.

    Overall... I think we can hopefully agree that bad behavior on either side is inexcusable... I just hope we can agree that bad behavior is also not limited to just one side.

    Have a nice night.


    David Johann wrote on April 16, 2008 11:35 PM: Summerlin, I enjoy the irony of responding in-kind, with equal venom, to conservatives fond of throwing around terms like "deranged liberal" (as the letter writer does). Generally, the incivility of conservative rhetoric began 12 years ago with Newt Gingrich. See Gingrich's GOPAC memo "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control."

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1276

    About the same time, other messengers of conservative incivility, notably Limbaugh, came to the fore--not a coincidence. "When the Republican Party won control of Congress in 1994 [Gingrich's heyday, the "Republican Revolution"], one of the first acts by many freshmen (calling themselves the 'Dittohead Caucus') was to award Limbaugh the title of "honorary member of Congress" in recognition of his support of their efforts during this period."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Professional_career_and_rise_to_fame

    Generally, compared to conservatives, do you see many venomous progressive pundits that get the airtime of say, an Ann Coulter or Michael Weiner (aka "Savage")? Can you think of many venomous conservative pundits?

    I think it surprises our talk radio fans to hear or read a progressive getting as verbally nasty as, say, a "CUT HIS MIC, CUT HIS MIC" Bill O'Reilly, or the letter writer who uses the term "deranged liberal."

    Certainly, it's not taking the high road, but there are enough people who are already doing that here.

    Generally, progressive rhetoric is emotionally detached, big on background over simple answers, and makes lousy talk radio or other sensational infotainment. Progressives with acid tongues are rare birds indeed.

    In the uncivil conservative style, environmentalists become "evironmental extremists" etc. You get the idea. Thank Newt Gingrich.

    When was the last time you read or heard someone other than me refer to a "deranged conservative" in the style of the letter writer?


    maqmood wrote on April 16, 2008 10:37 PM: 1) there will be no smoking
    2) in 5 years you will leave your LV slot machine to enter the "gas chamber" to light up and feed your unfortunate addiction, just as they will be doing tomorrow in Atlantic City casinos.

    maqmood, out


    Sad Summerlin wrote on April 16, 2008 10:19 PM: David Johann - I used to enjoy reading your posts as a nice counter point to my beliefs on a number of things, but lately you have been way out there in you undying hatred of anything that isn't socialistic or liberal and you unending quest to associate all that is bad in the world to Rush Limbaugh and George Bush.

    Man, when are you going to grow up and look at things more through the eyes of reality rather than hateful diatribes.

    I think the argument is a fair one, that using children dying in the streets as an argument for the smoking ban was quite laughable. I agree the comment about liberals might have been misplaced, but the sentiment of the statement is still correct.

    To me - the smoking ban does present a very distinct view of society today. Does society turn to government to force their own personal beliefs on others. One can say this is used by both sides.

    Behavioral choices like smoking, eating (fois gras in Chicago anyone), affirmative action etc for the more liberal leaning group.

    Abortion, Gay Marriage, Illegal Immigration for the more conservative leaning group.

    I am by far not a libertarian, but when are we going to turn to government to be governmental and provide for common defense, insure LIBERTIES and domestic tranquility. Frankly, we are failing on the domestic tranquility and LIBERTIES as a result of the government intervention (on both sides of the aisle)... let's make sure we don't let our defenses down... but perhaps we already have...


    AM wrote on April 16, 2008 09:44 PM: AM, AM, RUSH IS A D%&*, AM, AM, I LISTEN ALL DAY LONG, AM, AM. IF ONLY I COULD AFFORD AN FM RADIO. AM, AM I JUST LISTEN SO I CAN HATE THE WORLD. AM, AM IF YOU WOULD ONLY GO AWAY, I WOULDNT BE SO MISERABLE.


    David Johann wrote on April 16, 2008 09:15 PM: "That thousands of children were dying in our streets from secondhand smoke after hanging out in taverns was the most laughable excuse for this law ever conceived. Even the most deranged liberal can hardly make that connection."

    Hey kids! Let's play "pretend." Let us PRETEND that few neo-cons or other cons voted with the majority for the smoking law, and let's pretend that the view of children dying in the streets is a real position and belongs to "liberals."

    Fun, huh?! Oh boy! Aren't you just cackling with condescending glee, along with the letter writer?

    The author of the letter, an obvious AM radio type, has made yet another, typical, AM radio straw man argument (AM radio types are as addicted to straw man arguments as Rush Limbaugh is to narcotics and corn dogs).

    "The straw man fallacy occurs when a statement misrepresents or invents an opponent's view in order to easily discredit it."

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Straw_man

    Another explanation of the AM radio favorite, straw man argument, is to "oversimplify an opponent's argument, then attack the simplified version."

    Aren't straw man arguments fun? Those liberals are at it again: har, har, har, har.

    Wanna know what would have created tons of jobs? Rather than spending the money that we are on Bush's weapons-of-mass-destruction war with Iraq, we could have been building a water pipeline from the Columbia River.


    douglas wrote on April 16, 2008 09:11 PM: the issue continues to be one of health. this is no different than any licensed, open to the public, venue. contamination from fouled air is no different than rats, insects, contaminated beverages or beverage dispensing equipment, employees with communicable diseases, filthy rest room facilities, insufficient emergency exits, lack of fire detection equipment, etc.

    the suggestion that non-smokers should just go elsewhere must then apply to those citizens who dislike rats... just go somewhere else where the rats are smaller or fewer in number. unhappy if the restroom has no running water or the potty is plugged up ? just go somewhere else or hold it. don't like the bartender with hepatitis ? try the joint down the block. don't like the fruit flies in the booze ? hey, they are free. don't like it that the glass washer doesn't work ? we all have to eat our pound of dirt, right ?


    Ken wrote on April 16, 2008 08:36 PM: Sorry to keep picking on you sebastian, but your statement "Suck up, enjoy, die." seems to imply that if you dont smoke, well then, you wont die. I know I will die. Do you?


    tim wrote on April 16, 2008 07:40 PM: for all you non-smokers,get together,open your own tavern,bar ,whatever,then you can all feel good about yourselfs,outlaw smoking,then the rest of nanny-staters can visit your place.then you can leave the other owners alone and let them run their buisness how it should be in america,their buisness!


    Read All Comments