Visitreno

[remano]

A statewide smoking ban is scheduled to go into effect on Friday, barring court action enjoining it. Public smoking will still be allowed in casinos, brothels and bars that don't serve food, but will be banned in almost all other public places, including bars where prepared food is served.

In a related story the RGJ reported on a survey of over 17,000 gamblers in casinos throughout Nevada that found that only about one in five casino gamblers were smokers. 80% of those questioned were non-smokers. This would seem to allay the casino industry's fear that a smoking ban would harm their business. The widely accepted perception that most people in a casino are smokers shows how pervasive the smell of smoke becomes when only a few people light up.

For some reason, the incidence of smoking while gambling was greatest in rural areas and in neighborhood slot sites like grocery and convenience stores.

[alison]

I find it hard to believe that only 1 out of 5 gamblers is a smoker. Sure seems like a lot more people are smoking than that.

We have a law here like that in washington. I LOVE IT!! its so nice to go into a bar and not come home reaking of cigarette smoke. The law states you must be 25 feet away from windows and doors when smoking outside even. That isnt happenig but at least it is not inside. Its funny to see all the smokers freezing their a** off out in the cold. I keep telling my husband that now would be a good time to quit.

[stan_allen]

Why in the world can we not simply have smoking and non-smoking areas, like we used to?
That way, everybody got what they wanted.
Fiddling around with these laws to try and favor one group over another is an endless and ultimately destructive enterprise.

[alison]

i think the problem with having smoking and non smoking areas is the simple fact that even when you are seated in a non smoking area, the smoke still flows over to the non smokers. Smokers dont realize how bad the smoke smells. nasty!

[stan_allen]

It's true that proximity can be an issue, but with a little planning, drift can be minimized. I like it when efforts are made to offer as big a tent as possible.
A little libertarianism goes a long way in situations like this.

[alison]

Unfortunately smoking has health risks and it puts others at risk.

I could say that i have the right to go out and be in a public place such as a bar and not be exposed to second hand smoke. Just as someone who smokes should have the right to smoke.

i think that the reason it has become such an issue is just becaus eof the health risks. A smoker chooses to smoke and put themselves at risk. I should be able to enjoy a public place and not have to worry about being exposed to deadly second hand smoke. Sure i could choose to not go in there, but why should i have to? Im not exposing people to the smoke. This is why the designated outside smoking areas are good. Then we both can enjoy an establisment. then others are not being put at risk. We all know that smoking is not good,

Now surely this could become a huge debate. Knowing this board it might.

[remano]

[stan_allen]

Yes, this could indeed be a long and heated discussion, which shows the level of passion everyone brings to the (gaming) table.

Almost no one will come to the defense of those who smoke except the smokers themselves, whose justification is usually not much more than, "I sure like to smoke" - while this appears to nullify any valid points in favor of the smoker's choice of vice in public, it's worthwhile to reflect on how various activities are regarded and regulated by society as a whole. For example, all of us pay for risks taken by others in the form of increased insurance rates, and the insurance companies are locked in a perpetual dance of what to insure, and at what rates.

While smoking may appear to be a no-brainer in terms of what to ban whenever possible, this perception just didn't exist fifty years ago - but the passage of time does not automatically translate to progress and enlightenment - witness our ill-fated experiment with prohibition - all the "reasonable" people agreed that alcohol was simply to everyone's detriment, and once you agreed with that premise, a ban was the next logical step. Why didn't it work? Because people in general don't like to be told how they may deal with their own personal health issues.

With a resurgence of nanny-state-style thought that comes robed in the garments of "health" and "public welfare", we will witness efforts to remove every choice from our llives where an apparently "safe" approach can be mandated.

Is the notion of seatbelt requirements a dead issue to you? How about seatbelt requirements for all passengers? How about airbags, whose side effects are still being disputed, while carmakers dutifully put them into every car they make, just as though their value was a foregone conclusion? What will you say when passenger airbags for back seats are not only introduced, but required, raising the cost of your new vehicle for a "benefit" that you may or may not even want?

If these trains of thought seem completely divorced from the reality of gross cigarette smoke, I merely invite you to consider what will follow: more taxes on "unhealthy" food, beverage, and all other comestibles, followed by limited bans, followed by total bans. Such regulation and bans tend to begin in the largest possible public-use areas, but they will eventually follow you into your home.

If the number of smokers falls to a small percentage, then adjust the smoking areas accordingly. Sending smokers outside may seem like a great idea, but it comes with a price.

In the end, neither I nor anyone else can really defend smoking either, as it's pretty well established as a serious health hazard, but I can't get on the bandwagon for ostracizing smokers, either. Segregate them if you must, but refusing to accommodate them in any way is to ignore reality and to feed an already-ravenous bureaucracy of regulation.

[alison]

No one is saying to not accomodate them. Accomodate them by making an area where they are free to smoke and not contaminate others. Alot of the bars around here hhave made smoking areas outside, with tables and even heaters. Pretty cool i thought.

For me it is not just the gross factor of it. It is the health factor. I dont want to inhale someone elses smoke.

Lets face it, they will never ban smoking completely even though we know it is bad for us. they make way too much money off of it. Same with alcohol. Too much of a money maker. For me though, banning it in restraunts and bars is a positive thing. I am not personally concerned about it leading to other bans. I could say more, but wont as i am not wanting to get into more of a debate. it will lead to other areas of debate, that i am not feeling like getting in to at the moment. Too much typing!!

[alison]

can't we all get along???

[stan_allen]

Oh, we're all getting along; we're just having an intelligent, adult debate - these things don't always have to degenerate into hatred, name-calling, and petty tribalism, even though lots of people don't seem to understand that it's possible to have disagreements without engaging in such behavior.

And the outdoor heaters are certainly a civilized attempt to address an admittedly contentious topic.

[BC Dave]

Except for once or twice a year, I'm a none smoker. I'll enjoy a puff on a "Swisher Sweet" while in Reno.

I believe that smoking bans should be banned. That kind of law is not a valid function of a free country's government. If non-smoking patrons of a private establishment feel the smokers there are creating a health hazard, they (the non-smokers) should stay out of that place. Who would go willingly into a area that they believed hazardous to their health?

This is an issue for the market to decide. If enough people want a smoke free environment, entrepreneurs will be happy to provide them with it.

This is not so much an issue of smoker's rights but one of private property. I don't think the government should be poking it's nose into these private places and dictating their policys.

I've been in some pretty smokey bars and casinos and I like them that way. It should be remembered that no matter how thick the second hand smoke is, it's only a tiny fraction of the smoke that's inhaled by the actual smoker. (And some of them live to be a ripe old age!)

It was naive of me but I had hoped this kind of political correctness would never hit Nevada and my treasured Reno.

BC Dave

[john]

[alison]

Bar owners here tried to fight it too and lost.

It was on the ballot intially and the voters voted to ban smoking in bars/restraunts. So that is what the majority wanted. I voted to ban it!!!

I should be able to walk into a public restraunt and not have it be hazordous to my health. Why should the person who is just trying to enjoy a meal not go into the restraunt? Ban the contributor to the problem, the smoke!! Im not the one putting myself and others at risk, the smoking is.

i work in the Health care industry and see what smoking does to people every day. its not pretty!!

As of Jan 1st, 2007 the company i work for is going to be smoke free on their properties. You wont be able to even smoke in your car, since it is on their property. I was kinda shocked by that. We are going ot have alot of unhappy staff, thats for sure.

[stan_allen]

Hey, I'm certainly in favor of the democratic process, and will abide by the people's will and the law - but ultimately, Dave's point is the most important one, which is that once casinos can be assured that their clientele and its spending habits won't be adversely affected by smoking bans, they'll oblige. Later, if everyone wants to go back to full smoking, and there's enough people, the casinos will change again. They're only interested in attracting the maximum number of people, and the majority wins.
However, I still maintain that the risks of second-hand smoke are overblown in service of such bans. Besides, putting one's health at risk in the face of others' activities happens in a variety of ways all the time. The best solution is still sectioned-off areas, to accommodate everyone. If you choose to enter a particular establishment, you more or less agree - just not in writing - to the conditions that prevail inside that establishment. If the establishment chooses to allow smoking, it's hard to see why that should not be their prerogative, rather than the blanket and arbitrary authority of the state making decisions on behalf of people, which is against the spirit of Nevada that I believe John was alluding to - a quality whose last glimmer was fading as the '90s drew to a close, snuffed out by a fresh generation of those who favor more collective control over private enterprise of all sorts.
These notions speak to the heart of the frontiersman who is the soul of Nevada's culture (if I may say so simply as yet another Californian watching the whole scene play out), and at the risk of bloviating, I'll throw my vote behind this conjecture.