To Dr. George Kaiser, the debate over the two smoking initiatives on the Nov. 7 ballot will come down to two competing interests.

Smokers versus nonsmokers.

Kaiser, associate professor of medicine with the University of Nevada's School of Medicine, said smokers will favor Question 4 and nonsmokers will vote for Question 5.

"Smokers aren't going to want to restrict their activity, and I don't know why anybody would vote against (Question 5) if they're a nonsmoker,'' he said.

But beyond those two groups are other interests that are trying to sway public opinion toward either the more restrictive Question 5 or Question 4, which largely maintains the status quo.

Though both measures preface themselves as protecting Nevada citizens from second-hand smoke, namely children, their policies are no more alike than their backers: the likes of the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society for Question 5 and, for Question 4, the gaming, tavern and hospitality industry.

The latter group might be gaining some traction, according to a recent Review-Journal poll.

Question 4 saw support from 77 percent of those surveyed while Question 5, which led the other measure in a previous Review-Journal poll, garnered support from 62 percent. If both measures win a majority in November, the one with the most votes becomes law.

Michael Hackett, spokesman for Question 5's campaign, said the first TV ad is complete and should be running in the next week or two. Additional radio and paid newspaper ads are planned, and viewers can expect to see the campaign's pitch on local interview-format TV shows.

"I will be meeting with our media representative next week to get those dates,'' he said. "Our grass-roots advocates will also be out handing out literature and talking to folks about why they should vote for Question 5 and not the other one.''

Medical groups backing Question 5 are expected to provide information to the public.

"We've also had a lot of people respond to our Web site and are volunteering for us," Hackett said. "You should see a huge campaign from us starting next week or the week after.''

Lee Haney, a spokeswoman for The Smoke Free Coalition, which backs Question 4, said its television campaign begins this week as well. She said the overall campaign will consist of newspaper and radio ads as well as using volunteer groups to speak with the public.

"What people will most likely hear is 'protect children, protect our rights,'" she said. "That should be pretty consistent with our campaign.''

She said the campaign has been invited to make its case on local TV shows.

Should Question 5 pass, smoking would be banned behind just about any closed door in Nevada, with the exception of casino floors, bars that don't serve meals, and within the walls of your own home. It eliminates smoking on school grounds, in day care centers, shopping malls, video arcades and grocery and convenience stores. It also bans smoking in restaurants and bars that serve food.

Question 4 bans smoking on school grounds, in day care centers and video arcades. However, it allows smoking in slot machine sections of grocery and convenience stores and in designated areas of bars and restaurants restricted to adults ages 21 and older.

Under Nevada law, smoking is banned on school grounds, in public buildings, and in hospital areas. Restaurants must provide separate sections for smokers and nonsmokers.

Question 5, also known as the Clean Indoor Air Act, "takes a much stronger position,'' said Denise Tanata Ashby, executive director of the Nevada Institute for Children's Research and Policy at UNLV.

Question 4 "appears to make (current smoking) laws stronger," she said, but it would actually weaken portions of existing law, especially as it relates to the ban on smoking in licensed day care centers.

Currently, smoking is prohibited in day care centers except for those with fewer than five children. Under Question 4, the requirement would be loosened: Only day care centers with 12 or fewer children would be affected by the ban. That was the practice up until the 2005 legislative session when laws regarding smoking bans were stiffened.

Ashby acknowledges there are some gray areas in the stiffer of the two measures, which her department backs.

One area, which has been resolved for the moment, regards banning smoking in hotel and motel rooms.

Earlier this month, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected a provision added by Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox to include the rooms in the smoking ban.

Should Question 5 pass, Haney said, that issue will spring up because it is not clear whether hotel and motel rooms are indeed exempt.

Ashby said another unclear part of Question 5 is its use of the phrase "public places.'' She said it is not entirely clear what "public places" are in context of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act. The definition provided is that they would be "any enclosed areas to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted.''

Current law says smoking is prohibited in "public buildings,'' which means any building or office space owned or occupied by the Nevada System of Higher Education, the State of Nevada, any county, city, school district or other political entity.

"What actually is a public place can be up for interpretation,'' she said.

Hackett said he was aware of the possible confusion over the language and said the intent is just for enclosed places, not parks or outdoor amphitheaters. He said "public places" are venues such as theaters, museums and concert halls.

Overall, Ashby said, Question 5 is not as strict as bans in some other states.

States have begun to enact smoking bans because of decades-long research showing the health risks of second-hand smoke. They include heart disease and lung cancer. Secondhand smoke is also linked to ear infections and asthma in children.

Over time, and especially in Nevada, states have taken measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke by upgrading ventilation systems in certain buildings. However, in June, a U.S. surgeon general's report concluded there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure and that establishing smoke-free workplaces is the only effective way to prevent secondhand smoke exposure.

"Why should people be exposed to a known carcinogen? What would be the purpose of allowing people to be exposed to something that would increase your risk of getting lung cancer by up to 30 percent even if you're a non-smoker?'' Kaiser asked.

"Nevada is known as a libertarian state that values the individual freedom but if somebody is on a roadside spraying carbon monoxide, that would probably be stopped. If someone was spraying tar into a building, that would be stopped,'' he said. "And, if someone was leaking small quantities of tobacco into a building, that too would be stopped. From a public health standpoint, it doesn't make sense to expose people to secondhand smoke.''

Backers of the less restrictive initiative agree that secondhand smoke poses a health risk, however they also say banning smoking in all places in Nevada, except for where children are allowed, would harm the state's economy.

Keith Schwer, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at UNLV, said there's really no way to gauge what effect a full-fledged smoking ban would have on Nevada's economy.

Schwer doesn't take a position on either initiative, but he said he could see how Question 5 would make the gaming industry nervous.

"I think from the gaming industry's point of view, they know that a good portion of their customers smoke and, if there is a smoking ban, they face the possibility of losing those customers,'' he said. "Some people might say, 'It's too much of a hassle, I'll just go somewhere else.' Clearly, from the point of view of the industry, they'll have to adjust and that too might impose a cost.''