Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EDITORIAL: Ticketing smokers
Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | 8-16-07 | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Posted on 09/01/2007 4:23:10 PM PDT by GOP_Lady

Health district takes the wrong enforcement approach So this 105-pound Southern Nevada Health District clerk walks into a bar and tells a tired, 265-pound, tattooed construction worker, 'You can't smoke in here. I'm citing you. That'll cost you $100 ...' "

It's not a joke. The Southern Nevada Health District is preparing to turn office staff into the Puff Patrol, a crack law enforcement squad charged with sniffing out violators of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act. The new law, approved by voters in November, prohibits smoking inside most businesses, including bars that serve food.

Because a Clark County district judge in December struck down the law's criminal penalties, the health district is the act's sole enforcing agency. Right now, the district does little beyond taking complaints from customers about businesses that unlawfully allow smoking on their premises, then dispatching inspectors accordingly.

But the district's lawyers are dotting the I's and crossing the T's on a plan to cite individual smokers, which would assess a $100 fine and put citizens before a justice of the peace if they want to contest the ticket.

Most Popular Stories

J.C. WATTS: Dogfighting barbaric? So is abortion EDITORIAL: Another Democrat wants higher taxes EDITORIAL: By the numbers EDITORIAL: One for you, 19 for me ... EDITORIAL: Blowing the whistle on 'corrupt, cozy system' VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Seizing guns and socializing medicine -- Romney's a Republican? EDITORIAL: Bonuses just for showing up! LETTERS: Smoking ban foes ignore public health EDITORIAL: Ticketing smokers LETTERS: Why must we pay to use public lands?

Which takes us back to our opening line.

"We are not peace officers, yet we're in a bar and people are drinking," said health district attorney Stephen Minagil. "The health district staff writing these citations are scientists. They are environmental health specialists who are not armed. They don't have peace officer training."

Without intending to do so, Mr. Minagil points out exactly why the health district has no business pursuing such a policy. If an individual smoker refuses to provide his identification, the health district officer's only recourse is to call police for assistance. And local cops don't have the manpower to uphold traffic laws in the valley, let alone respond to some bureaucrat's complaint that the guy two tables down is lighting up and won't put his cigarette out.

In fact, Las Vegas police brass have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of upholding the Clean Indoor Air Act. They'll provide backup to health district ticket writers only if the confrontation, initiated by the government employee, precipitates assault or battery -- or worse.

In April 2003, two weeks after New York City's own anti-smoking ordinance went into effect, a bouncer at a Manhattan bar was stabbed to death after he asked two patrons to extinguish their cigarettes.

Workers' personal safety concerns will inevitably lead to another problem for the health district: selective enforcement.

Who is the aforementioned 105-pound "scientist" more likely to ticket, the 65-year-old woman with the oxygen tank or the beefy, 32-year-old ironworker? And where and when, exactly, will the Puff Patrol take to the streets? Will they hit upscale taverns in Summerlin or Green Valley during Thursday lunch, or biker bars on Boulder Highway at 2 a.m. Saturday?

If health district workers plan to continue working their convenient day shifts, the answers are easy -- and unconstitutional.

Already, the health district has shown a deficiency of common sense in upholding the Clean Indoor Air Act.

Although the operators of Irene's Lounge, at 5480 W. Spring Mountain Road, constructed a wall separating its nonsmoking dining area from the bar to keep their kitchen open and comply with the law, inspectors dinged lounge employees for taking food orders in the bar and serving meals to bar patrons. Mr. Minagil won't drop the health district's civil lawsuit against Irene's Lounge until he's satisfied that employees are forcing bar patrons to enter the dining area, order their food, then bring it back to the bar themselves.

Now that's a joke. The Clean Indoor Air Act was pitched to voters primarily as protection for "the children." But children aren't allowed in bars. What difference does it make if workers serve food in walled-off smoking areas where children aren't present? This kind of enforcement isn't about "the children," nor is it about preventing exposure to secondhand smoke. This is vindictive prohibition, plain and simple.

Considering how reliant local and state governments are on jacked-up cigarette taxes, that's bad public policy.

So how should the Southern Nevada health district fairly uphold a voter-approved statute? It's simple. Focus on the voters' intent and concentrate their enforcement efforts on places where "the children" could be exposed to secondhand smoke. Investigate citizen complaints and cite businesses only if aggrieved parties can be identified and demonstrate harm.

Citing individual smokers is a terrible idea that will further clog overburdened courts, cost government more than it can recover in fines and provoke citizen backlash. The Southern Nevada Health District should put a match to this policy -- somewhere smoke is allowed, of course.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: lasvegas; nannystate; pufflist; revenooers; smokenazis; smoking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: traviskicks; Eric Blair 2084

ping


21 posted on 09/01/2007 4:41:37 PM PDT by darkangel82 (Socialism is NOT an American value.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

Re: Huckabee, you are right. I do not trust him as a true conservative. I am surprised he attracts much support from the right. I do not want to see Huckabee as a VP running mate either.


22 posted on 09/01/2007 4:41:54 PM PDT by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ

“Plus if smoking laws get more stringent, even people who do not smoke will end up being affected.”

Absolutely! That has been my arguement from the very beginning. It isn’t about smoking, it is about control over our lives.


23 posted on 09/01/2007 4:42:17 PM PDT by upsdriver (DUNCAN HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady
“FYI ... Unfortunately, Mike Huckabee likes it also — NATION WIDE:”

He’s a reformed former unhealthy fat guy and there’s nothing worse than a “reformed drunk”

The good news is that his predilection toward Government tyranny will poison his bid to be President, so we won’t have to worry about it.

24 posted on 09/01/2007 4:42:37 PM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: vetsvette

Not sure Huckleberry Hound ever had much of a chance.


25 posted on 09/01/2007 4:44:08 PM PDT by JohnD9207 (Lead...follow...or get the HELL out of the way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mears

I lived in Vegas two years ago. I would point out to people that smoking in bars and casinos in Vegas proved that the citizens of Nevada believed in individual freedoms.

By the way, I don’t smoke and believe that if I don’t want to smell and breath smoke, I can go somewhere else.


26 posted on 09/01/2007 4:44:10 PM PDT by american_ranger (Never ever use DirecTV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: upsdriver

When people start getting thrown out of their homes because people in adjacent apartments or houses smoke, then we’ve got more problems. Or maybe if children will be taken by social services because parents smoke in a car. It seems farfetched now but it could happen. Who would have thought we’d ever see some of the other insanity going on today?


27 posted on 09/01/2007 4:45:55 PM PDT by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

“That’s right — give all the exemptions to the casinos and harass the small pub/restaurant owner!”

I’m sure the casinos own the politicians, and the little guy or gal get’s screwed.


28 posted on 09/01/2007 4:47:12 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker ( Hunter/Thompson/Thompson/Hunter in 08! "Read my lips....No new RINO's" !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: american_ranger

You have a brain and good common sense.

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve been insulted or snickered at while smoking in a place where smoking is allowed.

There should be more like you.

The market would eventually lead to a large percentage of places where smoking is banned,but still leave enough places for the rest of us. Laws are unnecessary.


29 posted on 09/01/2007 4:48:49 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
a voter-approved statute

This is the best part of the article...When voters get a chance, they choose, as FRee people to regulate smoking. That's a good thing.

30 posted on 09/01/2007 4:49:21 PM PDT by Wheee The People (Go FRed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

If we properly utilized these gov’t appointed anti-smoking Nazis to round up illegals, the latter problem would be solved overnight.


31 posted on 09/01/2007 4:49:40 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

The onus should be on the business owner. They should post visible signs stating that their establishment is non smoking. Then if someone violates it, they can be asked to leave or be refused service. Ticketing is just a plain dumb idea.


32 posted on 09/01/2007 4:49:52 PM PDT by stm (Fred Thompson in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ

“When people start getting thrown out of their homes because people in adjacent apartments or houses smoke, then we’ve got more problems. Or maybe if children will be taken by social services because parents smoke in a car. It seems farfetched now but it could happen. Who would have thought we’d ever see some of the other insanity going on today?”

Great point!


33 posted on 09/01/2007 4:50:32 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker ( Hunter/Thompson/Thompson/Hunter in 08! "Read my lips....No new RINO's" !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Back-home news ping.


34 posted on 09/01/2007 4:51:25 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

“Workers’ personal safety concerns will inevitably lead to another problem for the health district: selective enforcement.”

Like anyone cares in Vegas; except those pesky holier than though(LOL) idiot health police.

If I were them, I would watch out. Vegas doesn’t take to kindly to messing with money coming in.


35 posted on 09/01/2007 4:51:29 PM PDT by freekitty (May the eagles long fly over our beautiful and free American sky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

“If we properly utilized these gov’t appointed anti-smoking Nazis to round up illegals, the latter problem would be solved overnight”

We have a WINNER!!


36 posted on 09/01/2007 4:51:36 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker ( Hunter/Thompson/Thompson/Hunter in 08! "Read my lips....No new RINO's" !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Harley_Guy

Thank you for finding this excellent editorial for us, my dearest husband!


37 posted on 09/01/2007 4:51:48 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ

Hey, not only smoking. They may take away your kids if they catch you with “junk food” in your house. Or have your kid buckled up in the front seat instead of the backseat. Or if you discipline your children with a spanking. The list goes on forever. Smoking is only one avenue that fosters “buttinski-ism”.


38 posted on 09/01/2007 4:53:39 PM PDT by upsdriver (DUNCAN HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: upsdriver

You are right. I did add “what we can and can’t eat” in my original post. And we can include one more restriction they will want: What cars we can drive. As the influence of the “green” phonies continues, watch for more calls for a ban on SUVs. Or more physical attacks on those cars.

I almost forgot the threats to free speech we already face, and which will only intensify if the Dems take complete control. It could be a very ugly time in the next few years. The people who now say we live in times that are “too divisive” because of Bush haven’t seen anything yet.


39 posted on 09/01/2007 5:00:04 PM PDT by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

Private clubs are generally exempt from such restrictive laws. However, the anti-smoking zealots use the excuse that they need to protect the employees of private clubs, so that they can force such clubs to become non-smoking.

But there is another way: for such clubs to not have any employees at all.

The way this is done is for a club to issue “stock”, which can be earned by any club member for providing physical labor at the club, then redeemed for cash whenever they see fit. The club owner keeps 51% of stock, of course.

Interestingly, such a system also offers lots of other benefits. Not only does such stock pay “dividends” periodically, at rates higher than bank interest, which encourages shareholders to continue to hold shares instead of cashing them; but un-cashed shares can be used as a low-interest loan for club capital improvements, at rates far lower than a bank.

On top of everything else, with the agreement of other shareholders, the club owner can invest some of the shares in a high-yield mutual fund. In good economic times, this can be profitable enough for working shareholders (employees) to actually invest more of their money in share purchases, just so that they can get high yields.

In past, the paperwork involved would have been difficult; but with computers to do all the work, all shareholders need concern themselves with is doing as much work as possible for the club, to earn themselves more shares.


40 posted on 09/01/2007 5:23:52 PM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson