Perhaps honesty in advertising would have helped all those bar owners who are now hollering they'll quit serving food so that their smokin' slot players can keep making them rich.

Instead of a deceptive ad campaign that made it sound like Question 4 was a way to buck the big boys and protect little children, the ad campaign should have said jobs would be lost because bar owners would opt for smoking over food. They could have aired ads saying Question 5 is too extreme and would cost too many people their livelihoods.

But no.

The coalition of gaming and bar owners had to pretend they were trying to protect the little ones. And once that deception was stripped naked, they lost. Question 4's tricky ad campaign, deliberately designed to confuse the public, backfired. Ads saying you should vote for Question 4 to overcome the good old boys were laughable. Good old boys funded Question 4.

The good old boys should have focused on the economic ramifications of the strict anti-smoking Question 5. The good old boys should have written a compromise ballot question that addressed some of the concerns of nonsmokers. Instead, the good old boys promoted a question that loosened existing anti-smoking laws and then lied about what their initiative did.

The news stories on television since the election would have made honest and compelling ads in which food servers talk about how they'll be losing their jobs. For each bar that opts to cut food, they estimate laying off roughly 15 to 20 people. The same people who approved a higher minimum wage might have found that a compelling argument in an ad.

But no.

The idea that bars without food might contribute to more DUIs could have been persuasive.

But no.

An ad listing the names of bars that will stop selling food might have made people realize that exempting bars from the no-smoking ban, as long as they have a nonsmoking area, might have been practical, especially if your favorite bar is on the list.

But no.

Instead, Question 4 backers opted to shuck and jive.

Question 4 was poorly written. Whoever thought it was a good idea to make it easier to smoke around children in day care centers deserves a booby prize. On that point alone, the Smoke Free Coalition looked like a fraud, because it was a fraud.

News accounts in Clark County dwelled on the fact that Question 4 was deceptive, rather than examining any wide-ranging economic ramifications of Question 5. Instead of mounting a campaign of deception, the ludicrously named Smoke Free Coalition should have crafted advertisements based on economics and practicalities, which might have won them some support. They could have shown the faces of men and women likely to lose their jobs because food couldn't be served in bars if smoking is allowed.

But no.

Nevadans for Tobacco Free Kids was what it said it was, an anti-smoking group. Question 5 proponents were the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Nevada State Medical Society and the Nevada Academy of Family Physicians.

Question 4 proponents were casinos and bar owners perpetuating a con, and the majority of voters saw through the con this time.

The smoke 'til you choke lobby, by holding fast against nonsmoking laws, forced the hands of the anti-smoking lobby. A better way to handle stricter smoking laws would have been to go to the Legislature and work out a compromise rather than have an either-or choice on the ballot. However, in previous years, the anti-smoking effort lost in the Legislature. Lobbyists with enormous clout (Jim Joyce and Jack Jeffrey come to mind) squelched anti-smoking efforts year after year.

Unable to make headway in the Legislature, the anti-smoking leaders decided to change the law through a ballot initiative, Question 5.

Now the good old boys are going to pay for their refusal to meet the anti-smoking crowd halfway. Their only hope now is to take it to the courts and find judges willing to "interpret" Question 5 in a way that will permit some smoking exemptions.

The Smoke Free Coalition couldn't be honest in advertising, the good old boys couldn't bring themselves to compromise even a smidgen, and now they're stuck.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0275.