NV: Vegas smoking ban may crap out

SouthCoastToday.com ^ | December 08, 2006

[SheLion]

LAS VEGAS — A judge yesterday granted a 15-day restraining order to block a new ban on smoking at some bars and around the slot machines at supermarkets, gas stations and convenience stores.

Clark County District Court Judge Douglas Herndon said yesterday that there was a reasonable likelihood that a group of business owners could persuade him that the voter-approved ban, to take effect today, was unconstitutional.
"This is not an issue of my telling the voters their vote is wrong. It's an issue of the constitutionality of the law they voted on," Herndon said.

A hearing on the law was set for Dec. 19.

Nevada voters approved the ballot measure last month, coming as a surprise to many in the home of all-night casino gambling, on-the-house booze and legalized prostitution. The smoke ban would not effect gambling areas of casinos.
The business group filed suit Tuesday asking for an injunction and a restraining order to keep police from enforcing the law, claiming it was unconstitutional, too vague to comply with, and unfairly discriminated against some businesses.

[SheLion]

"This is not an issue of my telling the voters their vote is wrong. It's an issue of the constitutionality of the law they voted on," Herndon said.

[SheLion]

[TheTruthAintPretty]

OK...I give up. Which amendment, or section of either the U.S. or Nevada Constitution, contains the -right- to smoke?

The voters spoke. Dudes cannot marry other dudes and smokers have to go outside to smoke.

People need to get over it.

[JennysCool]

This is a pretty big deal here in the Silver State; the Johnny-come-lately Californians who have invaded Nevada in droves got this pushed through, over the strenuous objections of "real" Nevadans. The most onerous part is the ban on smoking in bars where food is served, and we have a lot of those. The bar owners' option is either to ban smoking in their establishment or give up serving food -- as such, it's restraint of trade and meddling in private business on the grand scale. I don't like legislating from the bench, but in this case, the judge is right: it's a bad law.

[xowboy]

Were not going to "Get Over It"....another thing we won't be getting over is being an American Citizen using a legal product. Think this doesn't apply to you......well "the truth ain't pretty" YOUR NEXT.

[xowboy]

And BTW which Amendment give you the right to pure air at every minute of the day-----no matter where you choose to go, or futher to live your life without any annoyances?

[Grut]

OK...I give up. Which amendment, or section of either the U.S. or Nevada Constitution, contains the -right- to smoke?

Ninth Amendment.

[SheLion]

People need to get over it.

No we don't.

http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TFDAEHH2HVJOFTKSE

[QUOTE who="Crystal"]if your a non-smoker you should have the right to keep your lungs free of secondhand smoke, smoking restrictions in the workplace and restaurants should be enforced. Go outside if you have to smoke.[/QUOTE]

 

No, you should not have a "right" to smoke free air.  Smoke was not an issue when our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and ordinances to control private businesses are an abuse of governmental power in any municipality, county, state or country where public officials attempt to legislate differently.  SHS has not been proven in any studies.to be a health hazard and is clearly visible to those who do not want to be exposed to it.  Charitable tobacco control organizations, telling the same lie repeatedly, do not make it the truth!  Current ventilation methods are very capable of maintaining safer indoor air quality than we find outdoors.  Tobacco is a legal product.  As long as it remains legal, then consenting adults who choose to use a legal product on private property where the public does not have to go and employees do not have to work, have the "right" to smoke.  Your nasal "rights" end at the perimeter of a private business' property.  

 

If clean air were really a health issue we would all be walking, riding a bike or a horse and forbidden to drive an automobile.  Airports would be non-existent to eliminate the quantities of jet fuel fumes exhausted constantly into our air. 

 

If you do not want to get wet, you come inside out of the rain!  If you do not want to breathe smoke in a private business, either buy the place and change it or use the sense you were born with and leave.  Smokers represent over 20% of the population and accordingly represent a significant portion of the spending public.  You do not have any more rights than they do.  It is none of your business.  If you don't like it...YOU go outside, or go somewhere else and mind your own business in the company of others who do not smoke.

[SheLion]

I don't like legislating from the bench, but in this case, the judge is right: it's a bad law.

You have that right!

This should be left up to the business owner and his patrons and NOT THE GOVERNMENT!  I am so sick and tired of Nanny Government telling us how to live our lives today, that I can just puke!

[houeto]

Dudes cannot marry other dudes and smokers have to go outside to smoke.

Apples to oranges.

People need to get over it.

What part of "Private Property" do you 'majority rule' people not understand?

[at bay]

I don't like legislating from the bench, but in this case, the judge is right:blah blah blah

So activist judges are alright as long as you agree with them? The issue of constitutionality has never been seriously entertained in challenges to smoke-free laws, the judge knows that. He is a small minded activist hack who will be quickly overturned.

[at bay]

"the truth ain't pretty" YOUR NEXT.

Your next what? Your next display of ignorance?

[JennysCool]

The issue of constitutionality has never been seriously entertained in challenges to smoke-free laws, the judge knows that.

Perhaps, then, it's finally being entertained.

[xowboy]

pardon me Mr. Perfect, YOU'RE NEXT.

[Just another Joe]

The issue of constitutionality has never been seriously entertained in challenges to smoke-free laws, the judge knows that.

It has never been brought into any suit that I'm aware of.
So now that it IS being seriously entertained, the judge is a hack?

Your agenda is showing. (As opposed to you're agenda is showing)

[Gabz]

I do not approve of legislating from the bench whether I agree with it or not.......however your contention that:

The issue of constitutionality has never been seriously entertained in challenges to smoke-free laws, the judge knows that.

....is simply your personal opinion as to what this judge knows.

My understand in re the question of constitutionality here has little to do with this being about a smoking ban, but rather in regard to it being unevenly applied depending upon business type.

[elkfersupper]

OK...I give up. Which amendment, or section of either the U.S. or Nevada Constitution, contains the -right- to smoke?

A better question would be where in either of those two documents is either government granted the power to force people not to smoke.

[Old North State]

Good point. The bill of rights was written to expressly limit the power of the Federal government and by extension,inter alia, that of the states. The ninth Amendment could be used to justify state regulation on public nuisances but is conflicts with, and is trumped by, the rights of private property without a compelling "common good" argument. Public property rights encompass the full use and enjoyment privilege for the owners. I believe that the State would have the right to require a warning that there might be some danger from smoke, but it should not be allowed to ban the use of legal products. Alcohol is a good example. No prohibition, no banning private use.

[boop]

Perfect! Why is this such a difficult concept for liberals? Just put a sign on the door: warning! smoking inside. If this terrifies you, don't go in.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!