David Layland wrote on July 17, 2007 12:44 AM: Why is it an all or nothing sort of deal. If I as a smoking business owner who wanted to allow smokeing in my establishment then posting a sign saying that it is a place that welcomes smokers should be all that is required by law. If you as a militant nonsmoker do not want to freequint my business then feel free to stay out. One day all my feel the oppressive yoke of an innerventionist government around thier collective necks. I hope not to live so long. But I am having a blast while it lasts.

John wrote on June 26, 2007 04:35 PM: Make sure we put meters on those parking spaces as well. 25 cents per 10 minute period sounds reasonable.

Jason West wrote on June 25, 2007 09:06 PM: To the Editor,

Please, enough already with Bonds countdown box showing to top Aarons record, his stats are not relevant, put something in the box that is....say wrestling stats.

Aaron wrote on June 25, 2007 07:57 PM: Doug Dem,

What did you do for all the years BEFORE Question 5 became an issue?? If you still couldn't go anywhere in Las Vegas, then your comment, now, means that even back then, you sat and watched paint dry. I hear the californicators have banned smoking in entire cities. Sounds like that would be perfect for you.

Christopher Hudson wrote on June 25, 2007 04:42 PM: Guys, In the Sunday June 24 "Say What?" column in Section D Viewpoints after "Your Vegas is showing" is the quote "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." The correct quote is "What happens here, stays here." Even though I think both quotes suck you guys should know how the correct slogan reads.
Bye.

What?! wrote on June 25, 2007 02:05 PM: Brenden,
You didn't say, but would you support a businessperson that excludes blacks from their establishment?

In a restaurant I would expect to tast food not smoke; if I was in a hookah lounge I would expect smoke.

You seem to indicate that you believe that the market place should be given preferance....so you would agree that a bar that sold crack, marijuana etc. should be allowed to flourish? All providing male and female prostitutes? And that condoms should come from coin operated machines in middle schools?

Andrew Mulligan wrote on June 25, 2007 12:12 PM: Mr. Kuhns writes "I voted against Question 5 because I don't like the fact that government is restricting the rights and liberties of all of us more and more each and every day." It's admirable that he votes, but he would do better to vote based on science and the real impact of smoking on the people and economy of any city or state, instead of paranoia about government. The claim that smoking regulations are bad because they hurt businesses is one of the largest crocks from the big crock collection of the phony "smokers' rights" special interest. This argument ignores the economic and human cost of exposing a population over time to poisonous gases that cause disease, shorten lives and increase health case costs to individuals and governments. Non-smokers, and even smokers who don't want to smoke in a particular situation, aren't obliged to scurry around looking for a safe clean place to socialize just because people with an uncontrollable addiction like to hang out in fun places too. Smoking regulations will stay and expand, despite any temporary setbacks and tobacco lobby and smoker propaganda. Businesses, not non-smokers, need to adjust their expectations and business models in a changing, improving world. No business needs to be subsidized at the expense of the community's overall health--that's how things are done in third-world countries that most of us don't want to live in.

Brendan Perez wrote on June 25, 2007 10:50 AM: "My right to swing my fist would probably end at the tip of you nose, wouldn't it?"

Unless you're both in a boxing ring.

The presence of smoke is almost always blantantly obvious. No one is sneaking up on non-smokers and blowing smoke on them nor are smokers going into non-smokers homes and smoking there.

Non-smokers should have gone to all of the non-smoking places available to them and their majority status. If there weren't enough businesses to cater to them, that certainly says something about the viability of a business that only caters to non-smokers.

Joe Secondhand wrote on June 25, 2007 10:24 AM: Regarding the 'Smoking ban hurting local business', Grow up!! At some point we are going to have to accept the simple fact that smoking is a dangerous habit. Unlike gambling, alcohol and other unhealthy habits, including bad fast food, smoking actually travels by air and into our lungs and the lungs of innocent citizens. What about the rights of those who do NOT want smoke in their lungs? Those are the only actual rights being violated. Smokers can take their dirty habits outside, to their car, to their home or to their friend's same locale. It is clear that the majority of voters are non smokers and if/when they issue another vote, smokers will lose again based on one simple fact; smoke travels!!! No other bad habit travels, gambling habits do not reach in my pocket and take money and alcohol does not jump glasses!! Simple physics. As far as the local taverns losing money, well, with several friends in the business, they all say they completely appreciate that they can work in a safe smoke free environment not to mention that they have received no loss in tips. I believe that there is a minority of nicotine fitted employees and owners who are just big babies who want the right to blow smoke up people's butts and faces. So, grow up and take it outside and quit crying!! For the record, big casinos are next....shhhh it's a secret just follow the Indian casinos as they actually care about the majority as well.
Ex Smoker of 7 years
Las Vegas resident 10 years

Reid wrote on June 25, 2007 10:17 AM: I guess its time to move Dr. P!

Read All Comments